Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diana

New Member
Nov 1, 2009
98
1
0
path;74668]So you do not believe God can take care of His Own Book. Butch and Diana said:
The TRUTH is that when translating from one language to another, there is bound to be errors. Even in my native language, it's not easy to translate it into English. The Catholic Church takes the view that in order to interpret the Bible correctly, one need to take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literry genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. "For the fact is that turth is differently presented and expressed in the vaious types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts and in other forms of literary expressions.' (CCC 110). The second thing is to read Holy Scripture with the same Holy Spirit that inspired the author to write it.
 

path

New Member
Nov 9, 2008
10
0
0
79
[quote name='Diana;74676]The TRUTH is that when translating from one language to another' date=' there is bound to be errors. Even in my native language, it's not easy to translate it into English. The Catholic Church takes the view that in order to interpret the Bible correctly, one need to take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literry genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. "For the fact is that turth is differently presented and expressed in the vaious types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts and in other forms of literary expressions.' (CCC 110). The second thing is to read Holy Scripture with the same Holy Spirit that inspired the author to write it.[/QUOTE'] So, what you aresaying is the Holy Spirit made the mistake of using two different words in the Matthew text. :eek: I am actually getting tired of your catholicism and choose not to read your stuff any more.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
I repeat we have a second wittnessHe tells us he is our corner stone as well Diana and that is the first Rock laid when a church is going to be built so he gives us a second/double wittness that he Jesus Christ is our Rock our Cornerstone upon which his church is built ....1Cr 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. but I know you wont listen so you follow your rock and we will follow ours Deu 32:31For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges.
copyChkboxOff.gif
Deu 32:37And he shall say, Where [are] their gods, [their] rock in whom they trusted,
 

Diana

New Member
Nov 1, 2009
98
1
0
Butch5;74674]You seem certain that Matthew never translated his gospel into Greek said:
It was St. Jerome who translated Matthew's Gospel. This is recorded in Catholic history. St. Jerome studied Aramic or Hebrew and he translated Matthew's Gospel into Greek. St. Jerome later translated the entire Bible into Latin. I have a book enttiled the "History of the Catholic Church" and it cited that St. Jerome translated the books from Aramic into Greek. He later translated it into Latin. It is also found in this fact archive website which I included a quote from:
To take Jerome at his word, the simplest conclusion from his combined testimonies may be summed up that Jerome knew at firsthand an Aramaic ("Syriac but in a Hebrew script") version of Matthew that had been circulating in Judea and Syria among the circumcized Nazarenes and among Ebionites, a copy of which was collected by Bishop Pamphilius for the library at Caesarea Palaestina and another copy, made for Jerome at Beroea, where it was still in use "to this day" (the 4th century). According to Jerome's testimony it was translated by Jerome into Greek— but all are now missing: the various Aramaic originals, the copies, a Greek translation already lost by the time of Jerome and Jerome's own Greek translation.
http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Gospel_of_Matthew
 

Diana

New Member
Nov 1, 2009
98
1
0
path;74677]So said:
Man was the one who wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God's message is in the Bible and always has been, but you do need to take into account the time and culture of the people who wrote these books in order to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying because man is finite and limited and could never comprehend the infinite and eternal God. It is only through His Son that we can understand God the Father because Christ came in the human form.
 

gervais

New Member
Aug 3, 2009
104
16
0
69
Butch5;74665]Actually I don said:
I believe that is correct, Butch and Christina,Jesus was saying, "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."Our faith in Jesus Christ is the ONLY ROCK that is a solid foundation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: found in Alaska

gumby

New Member
May 29, 2009
695
30
0
37
God is our rock not peter. 2nd Samuel 22:32, 2nd Samuel 22:47, 2nd Samuel 23:3, Psalms 18:2 and Psalms 40:2. God bless :)
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'll have to slightly disagree with ya'll Butch, Christina, and gervais, but I don't find reason to argue because it's close enough for my tastes.
I Corinthians 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Diana, your church doctrine does err in that while Jesus did not speak Greek, he did speak Aramaic. The translation was properly preserved in the Greek from the original Aramaic he would have spoken, being very careful to ensure the meaning is conveyed. Even speaking the phrase in modern English out loud yields the conclusion that some context has to place the meaning of the rock.IE: If Jesus were speaking to Peter as the rock, why would subject shift mid-sentence without a reason to change it? It does not make sense to grammatically read it with Peter as the rock.
 

Sir Knight

New Member
Jan 3, 2008
57
1
0
63
In Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 we see that Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.Jesus said in Aramaic in Matt. 16:18, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).To further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, in Matt. 16:17 Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.Also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" in Matt. 16:18 which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”In addition (making reference to Matt. 16:18-19), to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).To further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith. Finally, in 1 Cor. 3:11 Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25 Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28 the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
 

Diana

New Member
Nov 1, 2009
98
1
0
[quote name='Sir Knight;74694] Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 we see that Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do' date=' because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.Jesus said in Aramaic in Matt. 16:18, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).To further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, in Matt. 16:17 Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.Also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" in Matt. 16:18 which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”In addition (making reference to Matt. 16:18-19), to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).To further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith. Finally, in 1 Cor. 3:11 Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25 Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28 the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.[/QUOTE'] Well said. Thank you. You explained it better than I would have. :) Even translating my native language into English can be a challenge. The rules in the Chamorro language is not the same as English and can lead to some errors in interpretation.
 

Martin W.

Active Member
Jan 16, 2009
817
37
28
70
Winnipeg Canada
Some people here are throwing rocks on the pile , some are throwing the rocks aside , and some are saying there are no rocks at all.Typical christian debate , mostly misguided , because the topic and context of those verses really have nothing to do with rocks anyway.here is what happened:Jesus asked two questions , both to his disciples and one was answered by Peter on behalf of the disciples. It was not a singular answer by Peter alone.(first question) ..... When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" ........ They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."(second question) ..... "But what about you?" (disciples) he asked . "Who do you say I am?"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Jesus essentially said "correct answer"This is the context and message of these verses. Yes, Jesus mentions rocks and building his church based on "the correct answer" , For crying out loud the story is not about everybodies friggn' interpretation of what a rock is . Sorry about the crude language , but if we cannot even read our own bibles properly , and in context , we certainly are not in a position to teach others.Not all will be scholars.In summary , Jesus asked what the people were saying about him and then asked what they (the disciples) were saying about him.At that moment Peter just happened to be the spokesman. His answer represents the 12 disciples.Revelation 21:14 tells us about the new Jerusalem ... The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.Jesus builds his church on the foundations of the correct understanding of who Jesus is (by the disciples ......)..... not some singular Rock / Peter theory. God help us.Martin W.EditI corrected the scripture verses to the proper ..... Revelation 21:14Sorry for the error . (I had typed Revelation 12:14) me bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: found in Alaska

n2thelight

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2006
4,048
785
113
60
Atlanta,Ga
Martin W. Jesus builds his church on the foundations of the correct understanding of who Jesus is (by the disciples ......)
Very well said,but the Rock is important,as that should be the understanding, and it was,Christ is the Rock, as shown by scripture.
 

Sir Knight

New Member
Jan 3, 2008
57
1
0
63
Martin W.;74735]Some people here are throwing rocks on the pile said:
here is what happened:[/U]Jesus asked two questions , both to his disciples and one was answered by Peter on behalf of the disciples. It was not a singular answer by Peter alone.(first question) ..... When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" ........ They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."(second question) ..... "But what about you?" (disciples) he asked . "Who do you say I am?"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Jesus essentially said "correct answer"This is the context and message of these verses. Yes, Jesus mentions rocks and building his church based on "the correct answer" , For crying out loud the story is not about everybodies friggn' interpretation of what a rock is . Sorry about the crude language , but if we cannot even read our own bibles properly , and in context , we certainly are not in a position to teach others.Not all will be scholars.In summary , Jesus asked what the people were saying about him and then asked what they (the disciples) were saying about him.At that moment Peter just happened to be the spokesman. His answer represents the 12 disciples.Revelation 12:14 tells us about the new Jerusalem ... The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.Jesus builds his church on the foundations of the correct understanding of who Jesus is (by the disciples ......)..... not some singular Rock / Peter theory. God help us.Martin W.
Peter wasn't just a spokesman for the Apostles then but ALWAYS. He ALWAYS spoke for the Apostles. Matt. 18:21, Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 14:37, etc. That is the role of a leader. And in Luke 22:31-32 we see that Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles -- the ROLE of a LEADER.
 

Miss Hepburn

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2009
1,674
1,333
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Butch5;74665]Actually I don said:
I thought I was the only one that saw that! I also didn't think anyone on a forum had the guts to say it. It's so not mainstream.If I may,and I will do my best, someone taught/shared with me another perspective.To look at the scene - foot of Mt. Herman -where so much debauchery and orgies happened around the clock -and were happening as Peter was speaking with Jesus at their encampment -as Peter did not judge or fingerpoint any of his pornographic surroundings, but focused only on Jesus and His understanding of who He was and that "this" - this "faith and lack of distraction and lack of fingerpointing and focus on Jesus and trust in His revelation from the Father"...all of these combined was what Jesus meant by the rock. I thought it was more than cool.But, certainly, not the man, the person of Peter.But it's a tough one - and each will believe what they will.Common denominator is belief and love of Jesus, we all know that. :)Confusion is not what God's about...that's the other guy's devious trick - he wasn't a snake for nothing!Being a Catholic once - it would be impossible for me personally to follow what a man says or a Tribunal or Counsel of Elders or Bishops, Protestant or Catholics-and it is too changeable for my taste. Baptist or Anglican.But, it fits like a glove for some to trust others.Whatever floats your boat. Red dress or blue dress as long as you go to the party. ;)
 

Sir Knight

New Member
Jan 3, 2008
57
1
0
63
Miss Hepburn;74782][B][COLOR=Purple]Being a Catholic once - it would be impossible for me [I]personally[/I] to follow what a man says or a Tribunal or Counsel of Elders or Bishops said:
Interesting comment. Didn't the people follow what the Apostles had to say and weren't they just men? When a replacement was chosen for Judas and given FULL Apostalic authority, doesn't that show that the authority of the Apostles could be transferred to their successors? Doesn't the bible command us to obey our church leaders?
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
weren't they just men? No not exactly in the way you meanthey were given the full knowledge of God on Penecost Day to start the churchuntil that time they didnt even understand alot of what Jesus said to them ..
 

forgivenWretch

New Member
Feb 10, 2008
324
10
0
65
Tennessee
Martin W.;74735]Some people here are throwing rocks on the pile said:
here is what happened:[/U]Jesus asked two questions , both to his disciples and one was answered by Peter on behalf of the disciples. It was not a singular answer by Peter alone.(first question) ..... When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" ........ They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."(second question) ..... "But what about you?" (disciples) he asked . "Who do you say I am?"Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Jesus essentially said "correct answer"This is the context and message of these verses. Yes, Jesus mentions rocks and building his church based on "the correct answer" , For crying out loud the story is not about everybodies friggn' interpretation of what a rock is . Sorry about the crude language , but if we cannot even read our own bibles properly , and in context , we certainly are not in a position to teach others.Not all will be scholars.In summary , Jesus asked what the people were saying about him and then asked what they (the disciples) were saying about him.At that moment Peter just happened to be the spokesman. His answer represents the 12 disciples.Revelation 12:14 tells us about the new Jerusalem ... The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.Jesus builds his church on the foundations of the correct understanding of who Jesus is (by the disciples ......)..... not some singular Rock / Peter theory. God help us.Martin W.
Excellent post ! The rock is used only so the human mind can relate it to the true foundation (which is of the correct understanding of who Jesus is (by the disciples ......).We, Christians, that truly follow Him are the church which is built on the rock.
 

forgivenWretch

New Member
Feb 10, 2008
324
10
0
65
Tennessee
[quote name='Diana;74681]Man was the one who wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God's message is in the Bible and always has been' date=' but you do need to take into account the time and culture of the people who wrote these books in order to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying because man is finite and limited and could never comprehend the infinite and eternal God. It is only through His Son that we can understand God the Father because Christ came in the human form.[/QUOTE']Is not the bible written for, all, past, present and future?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.