Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

[JPPT1974]

The real rock that we stand on is that of Christ's. Buildings of churches may come and go. But as The head of the Church, Jesus never goes away nor never changes. He is The Rock we stand on. When all is loss. He never loses, never has, nor never will. Jesus is THE ROCK of all!

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

...Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion"
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170]....

It seems you like 'selective' readings of 'presbyterians' as you do also of so-called 'church fathers'.

Albert Barnes (commentary on Matthew 16:18), incorrect in such a statement, continued, in context to say:

"... Mat_16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, Joh_1:42

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa_28:16; 1Pe_2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Gal_2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Gal_2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.” ..."

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

... In the same dishonest breath - you demand that I show a verse where Peter claimed to be the "Rock" as Scripture calls him.

He doesn't HAVE to ...

Thank you for the admission, that scripture nowhere has Peter saying that he, himself, was the "rock" (petra; G4073).

because Scripture already does.

Actually you assume it does, for when we consider Paul's uses of words, it is not that he ever calls Peter ('petra'; G4073).

The only times that Paul (and Peter) uses the word 'petra' (G4073) is in refernce to Jesus Christ Himself, the cornerstone, as per:

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock ('petra'; G4073) of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock ('petra'; G4073) that followed them: and that Rock (G4073) was Christ.

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock ('petra'; G4073) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

In the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, we read that Jesus refers to "these sayings of mine" being like a man buliding upon the 'petra' (G4073):

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock ('petra'; G4073):

Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock ('petra'; G4073).

Luk 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock ('petra'; G4073): and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock ('petra'; G4073).

In Matthew 27:60 and Mark 15:46, we see that the wore 'petra' refers to a massive rock, a mountainside, a great foundation, etc, and not a movable stone, as a 'lithos' (G3037):

Mat 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock ('petra'; G4073): and he rolled a great stone ('lithos' G3037) to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Mar 15:46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock ('petra'; G4073), and rolled a stone ('lithos' G3037) unto the door of the sepulchre.

In the time of Christ's sacrifice, we see that it takes an massive earthquake to rend the "rocks" ('petra'; G4073):

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks ('petra'; G4073) rent;

In the book of Revelation, we see John use the word, in regards to massive mountains and huge stones of the earth:

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks ('petra'; G4073), Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Paul even refers to Him as the "Rock" (Cephas) in his letters (Gal. 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5) . . .

Paul refers to Peter, as 'Cephas' (G2786) or a 'petros' (G4074), never 'Petra' (G4073), which is nothing more than what Jesus called him from the beginning:

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas ('cephas'; G4074), which is by interpretation, A stone ('petros'; G4074).

The bible, inspired of the Holy Ghost, who is infallible, just gave the "interpretation" of "Cephas" (G4074) = "a stone" ('petros'; G4074), going from one language to another, and anything else, according to Peter's own words, is 'private interpretation', and therefore you are rebuked by Cephas/Peter himself, whom you claim to acknowledge:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

See also Genesis 40:8, from which Peter is drawing from, among several other texts, such as Isaiah 28:10,13, etc.

Simon bar Jonah is called "Peter" ('petros'; G4074), by Luke under inspiration, in Acts 12:14. Luke does not use the word, 'Petra' (G4073), ever for Peter, anywhere, in his own record of the Gospel, or in the book of Acts, or in any travels (and thus Epistles) with Paul. See also:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter ('petros'; G4074) rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Simon is called Peter is called "Peter" ('petros'; G4074), by the Apostle John, in John 6:8, whose Gospel was known to be written well after the Isle of Patmos experience (and thus Revelation), well into the late AD 90's.

The other Gospel writers, all writing, a few years later after the events, never use 'Petra' (G4073) in regards to Simon, but always use "Simon" (G4613) (and its variant Simeon, G4826), or "Cephas" (G4074) or "Peter" ('petros'; G4074).

Simon, himself, never takes up the word 'Petra' (G4073) for himself as a designation, but even uses the same designation that Jesus gave to him from the beginning (John 1:42), in both of his own Epistles, and the last to be written by him, before he died in Rome:

1Pe 1:1 Peter ('petros'; G4074), an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter ('petros'; G4074), a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

James in the council, held in Acts 15, written several years after Jesus ascended, calls Simon, by his plain name, even "Simeon":

Act 15:14 Simeon (G4826) hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Finally, Jesus Himself, never uses the word 'Petra' (G4073), in regards to Peter (Πέτρος (G4074)), even after the resurrection (John 21:15-17), neither the disciples at Pentecost, or after, etc, (even if you think it this one instance (Matt. 16:18), which it isn't by it's context, but more than this, you would need this testimony in the written words of two or three witnesses of scripture, not merely one (which you do not have, and are not granted, as you assumed) by the rules of scriptural witnesses):

Πέτρος (G4074)

Petros

Total KJV Occurrences: 162

peter, 157

Mat_4:18, Mat_10:2, Mat_14:28-29 (2), Mat_16:15-16 (2), Mat_16:18, Mat_16:22-23 (2), Mat_17:1, Mat_17:4, Mat_17:24, Mat_17:26, Mat_18:21, Mat_19:27, Mat_26:33, Mat_26:35, Mat_26:37, Mat_26:40, Mat_26:58, Mat_26:69, Mat_26:73, Mat_26:75, Mar_3:16, Mar_5:37, Mar_8:29, Mar_8:32-33 (2), Mar_9:2, Mar_9:5, Mar_10:28, Mar_11:21, Mar_13:3, Mar_14:29, Mar_14:33, Mar_14:37, Mar_14:54, Mar_14:66-67 (2), Mar_14:70, Mar_14:72, Luk_5:7-8 (2), Luk_6:14, Luk_8:45, Luk_8:51, Luk_9:20, Luk_9:28, Luk_9:32-33 (2), Luk_12:41, Luk_18:28, Luk_22:8, Luk_22:34, Luk_22:54-55 (2), Luk_22:58, Luk_22:60-62 (4), Luk_24:12, Joh_1:44, Joh_6:68, Joh_13:6, Joh_13:8-9 (2), Joh_13:24, Joh_13:36-37 (2), Joh_18:10-11 (2), Joh_18:15-18 (5), Joh_18:25-27 (3), Joh_20:2-4 (3), Joh_20:6, Joh_21:2-3 (2), Joh_21:7 (2), Joh_21:11, Joh_21:15, Joh_21:17, Joh_21:20-21 (2), Act_1:13, Act_1:15, Act_2:14, Act_2:37-38 (2), Act_3:1, Act_3:3-4 (2), Act_3:6, Act_3:11-12 (2), Act_4:8, Act_4:13, Act_4:19, Act_5:3, Act_5:8-9 (2), Act_5:15, Act_5:29, Act_8:14, Act_8:20, Act_9:32, Act_9:34, Act_9:38-40 (4)Act_11:2, Act_11:4, Act_11:7, Act_11:13, Act_12:3, Act_12:5-7 (3), Act_12:11, Act_12:13-14 (2), Act_12:16, Act_12:18, Act_15:7, Gal_1:18, Gal_2:7-8 (2), Gal_2:11, Gal_2:14, 1Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:1

peter’s, 4

Mat_8:14, Joh_1:40, Joh_6:8, Act_12:14

stone, 1

Joh_1:42

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have considerable issues involving mental health. You are so narcissitic. I am not being dishonest except in your mind. You haven't destroyed any thing I have said except in your mind. I am not back pedaling, except in your mind. There was no 'smooth move' except in your mind.

Your whole presentation is to build a facade. You work on the facade because it covers or hides the reality.

Stranger

The only "facade" is in the phony case you tried desperately to build around the idea that Eve claimed that she WAS the mother of ALL the living. You also dishonestly stated that Abraham claimed that he was Father of a multitude of nations.
NEITHER of them ever claimed these things - and that was my point.

Why would you expect that Peter would have to claim that he is the "Rock" of Matt. 16:18 - when Jesus already said he was??

 

[BreadOfLife]

It seems you like 'selective' readings of 'presbyterians' as you do also of so-called 'church fathers'.

Albert Barnes (commentary on Matthew 16:18), incorrect in such a statement, continued, in context to say:

"... Mat_16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, Joh_1:42

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isa_28:16; 1Pe_2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Gal_2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Gal_2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.” ..."

Your perversion of Matt. 16:18 violates another Protestant statute knows as the Granville Sharp's Rule, which states:
`When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.'" (A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana& Mantey, p. 147)
In other words - Jesus' statement to Simon, "YOU are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church . . ." indicates that BOTH instances of "Kepha" (ROCK) are referring to Simon.

As for your nonsense about Peter not having primacy -

Why is Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 10:2 - Peter is called "First" (Protos) - even though he is NOT the first Apostle chosen.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means ALL people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

So much for your half-baked, unbiblical theories about Peter . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you for the admission, that scripture nowhere has Peter saying that he, himself, was the "rock" (petra; G4073).

That's a pretty moronic claim coming from ANYBODY who actually R*E*A*D my previous post.

My entire point was that he didn't HAVE to make this claim - just as Eve never made the claim that she was "Mother of ALL the Living". Neither did Abraham ever make the claim that he was "Father of a multitude of nations."

Scripture CLEARLY makes these claims about them - but they THEMSELVES never acknowledged them. Why should Peter have to??

Pretty WEAK, Benjie . . .

Actually you assume it does, for when we consider Paul's uses of words, it is not that he ever calls Peter ('petra'; G4073).

The only times that Paul (and Peter) uses the word 'petra' (G4073) is in refernce to Jesus Christ Himself, the cornerstone, as per:

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock ('petra'; G4073) of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock ('petra'; G4073) that followed them: and that Rock (G4073) was Christ.

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock ('petra'; G4073) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

In the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, we read that Jesus refers to "these sayings of mine" being like a man buliding upon the 'petra' (G4073):

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock ('petra'; G4073):

Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock ('petra'; G4073).

Mar 15:46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock ('petra'; G4073), and rolled a stone ('lithos' G3037) unto the door of the sepulchre.

In the time of Christ's sacrifice, we see that it takes an massive earthquake to rend the "rocks" ('petra'; G4073):

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks ('petra'; G4073) rent;

In the book of Revelation, we see John use the word, in regards to massive mountains and huge stones of the earth:

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks ('petra'; G4073), Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Paul refers to Peter, as 'Cephas' (G2786) or a 'petros' (G4074), never 'Petra' (G4073), which is nothing more than what Jesus called him from the beginning:

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas ('cephas'; G4074), which is by interpretation, A stone ('petros'; G4074).

The bible, inspired of the Holy Ghost, who is infallible, just gave the "interpretation" of "Cephas" (G4074) = "a stone" ('petros'; G4074), going from one language to another, and anything else, according to Peter's own words, is 'private interpretation', and therefore you are rebuked by Cephas/Peter himself, whom you claim to acknowledge:

Simon bar Jonah is called "Peter" ('petros'; G4074), by Luke under inspiration, in Acts 12:14. Luke does not use the word, 'Petra' (G4073), ever for Peter, anywhere, in his own record of the Gospel, or in the book of Acts, or in any travels (and thus Epistles) with Paul. See also:

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter ('petros'; G4074) rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Simon is called Peter is called "Peter" ('petros'; G4074), by the Apostle John, in John 6:8, whose Gospel was known to be written well after the Isle of Patmos experience (and thus Revelation), well into the late AD 90's.

The other Gospel writers, all writing, a few years later after the events, never use 'Petra' (G4073) in regards to Simon, but always use "Simon" (G4613) (and its variant Simeon, G4826), or "Cephas" (G4074) or "Peter" ('petros'; G4074).

Simon, himself, never takes up the word 'Petra' (G4073) for himself as a designation, but even uses the same designation that Jesus gave to him from the beginning (John 1:42), in both of his own Epistles, and the last to be written by him, before he died in Rome:

1Pe 1:1 Peter ('petros'; G4074), an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter ('petros'; G4074), a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

James in the council, held in Acts 15, written several years after Jesus ascended, calls Simon, by his plain name, even "Simeon":

Act 15:14 Simeon (G4826) hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Finally, Jesus Himself, never uses the word 'Petra' (G4073), in regards to Peter (Πέτρος (G4074)), even after the resurrection (John 21:15-17), neither the disciples at Pentecost, or after, etc, (even if you think it this one instance (Matt. 16:18), which it isn't by it's context, but more than this, you would need this testimony in the written words of two or three witnesses of scripture, not merely one (which you do not have, and are not granted, as you assumed) by the rules of scriptural witnesses):

Πέτρος (G4074)

Petros

Total KJV Occurrences: 162

peter, 157

Mat_4:18, Mat_10:2, Mat_14:28-29 (2), Mat_16:15-16 (2), Mat_16:18, Mat_16:22-23 (2), Mat_17:1, Mat_17:4, Mat_17:24, Mat_17:26, Mat_18:21, Mat_19:27, Mat_26:33, Mat_26:35, Mat_26:37, Mat_26:40, Luk_22:60-62 (4), Luk_24:12, Joh_1:44, Joh_6:68, Joh_13:6, Joh_13:8-9 (2), Joh_13:24, Joh_13:36-37 (2), Joh_18:10-11 (2), Joh_18:15-18 (5), Joh_18:25-27 (3), Joh_20:2-4 (3), Joh_20:6, Joh_21:2-3 (2), Joh_21:7 (2), Joh_21:11, Joh_21:15, Joh_21:17, Joh_21:20-21 (2), Act_1:13, Act_1:15, Act_2:14, Act_2:37-38 (2), Act_3:1, Act_3:3-4 (2), Act_3:6, Act_3:11-12 (2), Act_4:8, Act_4:13, Act_4:19, Act_5:3, Act_5:8-9 (2), Act_5:15, Act_5:29, Act_8:14, Act_8:20, Act_9:32, Act_9:34, Act_9:38-40 (4)Act_11:2, Act_11:4, Act_11:7, Act_11:13, Act_12:3, Act_12:5-7 (3), Act_12:11, Act_12:13-14 (2), Act_12:16, Act_12:18, Act_15:7, Gal_1:18, Gal_2:7-8 (2), Gal_2:11, Gal_2:14, 1Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:1
peter’s, 4
Mat_8:14, Joh_1:40, Joh_6:8, Act_12:14
stone, 1
Joh_1:42

Now - this point is especially asinine because it shows you haven't been reading the posts.

I already destroyed this argument back on page ONE by illustrating that Jesus didn't speak Greek to the Apostles. He spoke ARAMAIC. There is no Petra or Petros in Aramaic - only "KEPHA", which means "ROCK".

Had you read my post - you would ALSO have known that Abraham is also referred to as "ROCK" in Isaiah 51:1-2. Not only did I present these verses - I also presented DOZENS of quotes from Protestant scholars who acknowledge and AGREE with them.

Please d your HOMEWORK before responding . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[ScottA]

To me it is very clear that the Rock Jesus speaks of here refers to the revelation of Who Jesus is.
Therefore it must be the foundation that He builds His Church on and in turn, the reference point for the unity of the Church of God.

Any thoughts on this?

Specifically, this is the formal introduction of the Holy Spirit, and the announcement of the fulfillment of God pouring out His spirit upon all flesh as foretold by Joel the prophet...which is His judgement.

 

[Stranger]

The only "facade" is in the phony case you tried desperately to build around the idea that Eve claimed that she WAS the mother of ALL the living. You also dishonestly stated that Abraham claimed that he was Father of a multitude of nations.
NEITHER of them ever claimed these things - and that was my point.

Why would you expect that Peter would have to claim that he is the "Rock" of Matt. 16:18 - when Jesus already said he was??

As I already said, Eve was aware and knew she was the mother of all the living, as voiced by Adam and voiced by her in her testimony after Cain's bith that she had 'gotten a man from the LORD'. (Gen. 3:20) (Gen. 4:1) The only reason Abraham sacrificed Isaac is because he believed the promises God gave him, and he trusted God to raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill those promises. (Heb. 11:17-19) (Gen. 12:1-3) (Gen. 17:4-6)

Why does the pope claim such authority, and wield such authority, believing that Jesus said Peter was the rock? Why does the Roman Church feel it must act all high and mighty based on what they believe Christ said to Peter, when Peter never did?

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

Good grief - how many times must this passage be argued - and how many time do you guys need to be proven wrong?

FIRST of all - Jesus and the Apostles spoke ARAMAIC to one another - not Greek - so your entire linguistic argument goes right out the window.
What Jesus actually said to Simon was: "You are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my Church."

The Aramaic word, "Kepha" means "ROCK" - period. Not "small rock" or "pebble" - just ROCK.
This is why Paul refers to Peter - NOT as "Petros" in his letters - but as "CEPHAS", which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha. The vast majority of your own Protestant scholarship agrees with the CATHOLIC position that the "Rock" is Peter - and NOT his confession of faith NOR the revelation of who Jesus was . . .

Good grief!

And there you have the linguistic argument instead of the proper "spiritual discernment" of the matter.

Good grief - I say!

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I already said, Eve was aware and knew she was the mother of all the living, as voiced by Adam and voiced by her in her testimony after Cain's bith that she had 'gotten a man from the LORD'. (Gen. 3:20) (Gen. 4:1) The only reason Abraham sacrificed Isaac is because he believed the promises God gave him, and he trusted God to raise Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill those promises. (Heb. 11:17-19) (Gen. 12:1-3) (Gen. 17:4-6)

And Peter knew he had Primacy over the others.

That's NOT what we were debating. YOU argued that Peter never CLAIMED to have Primacy - and I countered with the fact that Eve never CLAIMED she was "Mother of ALL the living". NOR did Abraham CLAIM that he was "Father of a multitude of nations".

You're back-pedaling . . .

Why does the pope claim such authority, and wield such authority, believing that Jesus said Peter was the rock? Why does the Roman Church feel it must act all high and mighty based on what they believe Christ said to Peter, when Peter never did?

Stranger

Because, as we read in Acts 1:20-21 - the office of Apostle is a SUCCESSIVE office. It does not "end" with the death of the original Apostle - it goes on . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good grief!

And there you have the linguistic argument instead of the proper "spiritual discernment" of the matter.

Good grief - I say!

As I stated before - according to your Protestant statute of Granville Sharp's Rule - the grammatical and spiritual discernment of Matt. 16:18 can ONLY lead to Peter being the "Rock."

For crying out loud - his name WAS "Simon".
"Peter" means "ROCK".

 

[ScottA]

As I stated before - according to your Protestant statute of Granville Sharp's Rule - the grammatical and spiritual discernment of Matt. 16:18 can ONLY lead to Peter being the "Rock."

For crying out loud - his name WAS "Simon".
"Peter" means "ROCK".

And that is why it is a matter of spiritual "discernment." Lest, with the two possible interpretations and two possible named subjects, some will follow a man, and some will follow God.

"Follow Me."

Duh!

 

[Truth]

Good grief!

And there you have the linguistic argument instead of the proper "spiritual discernment" of the matter.

Good grief - I say!

Come on, how can anyone refute Mel Gibson, the Producer of the Passion of the Christ, the Movie was done in the Aramaic, so how can we refute such a linguistic Scholar like Good old Mel. LOL!

 

[Stranger]

And Peter knew he had Primacy over the others.

That's NOT what we were debating. YOU argued that Peter never CLAIMED to have Primacy - and I countered with the fact that Eve never CLAIMED she was "Mother of ALL the living". NOR did Abraham CLAIM that he was "Father of a multitude of nations".

You're back-pedaling . . .

Because, as we read in Acts 1:20-21 - the office of Apostle is a SUCCESSIVE office. It does not "end" with the death of the original Apostle - it goes on . . .

No he didn't. Peter never indicated any such thing. It is only in your mind and dreams.

Peter didn't claim to have primacy. Well, concerning Eve, I have already showed you. Plus, it wasn't God that said that Eve was the Mother of all living, it was Adam. Of course he was correct, as he believed God concerning (Gen. 3:15) . And then Eve showed she believed that also concerning (Gen. 3:15) And of Abraham I have already showed you in the book of (Hebrews) that he did claim those promises given him. You ignore these verses, but you can't hide from these verses. You have a standard argument. And if that argument is upset, you just ignore it and repeat it.

Just as you ignore now my questions in post #128. "Why does the pope claim such authority and wield such authority, believing that Jesus said Peter was the rock? Why does the Roman Church feel it must act all high and mighty, based on what they believe Christ said to Peter, when Peter never did?

Stranger

 

[epostle]

No he didn't. Peter never indicated any such thing. It is only in your mind and dreams.

Peter didn't claim to have primacy.

You completely missed the point. "claim" is the wrong word. Paul didn't claim to have primacy either. None of the Apostles "claimed" authority or primacy over bishops. Real spiritual authority must be confered. A priest cannot confer ordination, only a bishop.

Well, concerning Eve, I have already showed you. Plus, it wasn't God that said that Eve was the Mother of all living, it was Adam. Of course he was correct, as he believed God concerning (Gen. 3:15) . And then Eve showed she believed that also concerning (Gen. 3:15) And of Abraham I have already showed you in the book of (Hebrews) that he did claim those promises given him. You ignore these verses, but you can't hide from these verses. You have a standard argument. And if that argument is upset, you just ignore it and repeat it.

In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."

Just as you ignore now my questions in post #128. "Why does the pope claim such authority and wield such authority, believing that Jesus said Peter was the rock? Why does the Roman Church feel it must act all high and mighty, based on what they believe Christ said to Peter, when Peter never did?

"Roman Church" is accurate depending on the sense of its use. You use it in the derogatory sense because you are ill mannered and enjoy being annoying.
Authority cannot be claimed, it must be received from a higher authority. Protestant scholars are better at explaining why Peter is the Rock and not his confession of faith.... the list of a variety of Protestant scholars that you have dismissed 50 times. We don't need Matt.16:18 alone, scripture gives us about 70 indications of Peter's primacy. The Church hopes you overcome your inferiority complex and outgrow your 500 year old bullying as many Protestant communities have.

​

 

[BreadOfLife]

And that is why it is a matter of spiritual "discernment." Lest, with the two possible interpretations and two possible named subjects, some will follow a man, and some will follow God.

"Follow Me."

Duh!

As Catholics - we follow God.
We simply recognize HIS Authority - and those He left with Authority here on earth.

God usually uses tangible means to accomplish his ends - like earthly Authority. Abraham, Moses, David, Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Jesus did the same thing when He healed people. Mud in the eye to heal the blind - a finger in the ear to heal the deaf, etc.

We are a physical people and that's why God gives us physical means and physical Authority figures.
What - YOUR sect doesn't have a pastor??

 

[BreadOfLife]

No he didn't. Peter never indicated any such thing. It is only in your mind and dreams.

Peter didn't claim to have primacy. Well, concerning Eve, I have already showed you. Plus, it wasn't God that said that Eve was the Mother of all living, it was Adam. Of course he was correct, as he believed God concerning (Gen. 3:15) . And then Eve showed she believed that also concerning (Gen. 3:15) And of Abraham I have already showed you in the book of (Hebrews) that he did claim those promises given him. You ignore these verses, but you can't hide from these verses. You have a standard argument. And if that argument is upset, you just ignore it and repeat it.

Just as you ignore now my questions in post #128. "Why does the pope claim such authority and wield such authority, believing that Jesus said Peter was the rock? Why does the Roman Church feel it must act all high and mighty, based on what they believe Christ said to Peter, when Peter never did?

Stranger

You're playing games no because you've LOST your original argument.
Neither Eve NOR Abraham ever claimed the things written about them in Scripture.

Peter didn't claim the things written about HIM, either - but that doesn't mean that Eve wasn't the Mother of ALL the Living - or that Abraham wasn't the Father of a multitude of Nations - or that Peter wasn't the "Rock" of Matt. 16:18.

You've LOST this one, Stranger . . .

 

[ScottA]

As Catholics - we follow God.
We simply recognize HIS Authority - and those He left with Authority here on earth.

God usually uses tangible means to accomplish his ends - like earthly Authority. Abraham, Moses, David, Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Jesus did the same thing when He healed people. Mud in the eye to heal the blind - a finger in the ear to heal the deaf, etc.

We are a physical people and that's why God gives us physical means and physical Authority figures.
What - YOUR sect doesn't have a pastor??

You kid yourself. If you followed God, he would not have the name of a man, nor could he be seen.

As for authority, "all authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to the Son", and "a servant is not greater than his master."

"Whoever exalts himself will be humbled."

 

[Enoch111]

...or that Peter wasn't the "Rock" of Matt. 16:18.

Other than this, you were correct. There could be ONLY ONE ROCK and that Rock is Christ, not Peter.

 

[Stranger]

You're playing games no because you've LOST your original argument.
Neither Eve NOR Abraham ever claimed the things written about them in Scripture.

Peter didn't claim the things written about HIM, either - but that doesn't mean that Eve wasn't the Mother of ALL the Living - or that Abraham wasn't the Father of a multitude of Nations - or that Peter wasn't the "Rock" of Matt. 16:18.

You've LOST this one, Stranger . . .

Sorry. I have already showed you that Eve knew and responded to Adam's declaration that Eve was the mother of all living. God never did say it. Adam did. All was based upon (Gen. 3:15). And I showed you the same with Abraham. He knew and acted upon it.

Peter never declared himself to be the rock upon which the Church was to be built. Nor did he act like it. Which brings me back to the two question you refuse to answer.

Why does the pope claim and wield such authority, believing that Jesus said Peter was the rock, when Peter didn't? Why does the Roman church feel it must act all high and mighty, based on what they believe Christ said to Peter, when Peter never did?

Stranger