Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

[mjrhealth]

I would not be surprised if you find that"revelation" is the feminine as "wisdom" is in the feminine in the bible. Wisdom is mentioned as "she". And since that is what Jesus was speaking off. Leave it to you im no scholar shnarkle...

 

[epostle1]

Matt. 16:13 from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

Looking around for the opinions from commentators over the last 2000 years tends to muddy the waters a bit.

Authoritive statements from well informed, respected authors who lived in that culture and language are not mere opinions, they are testaments to what was always believed as true, before the final canon of Scripture. The Council of Chalcedon further developed the Trinity in response to heretics. The waters are quite clear. They are muddied by people who sever their own roots.

What I am asking is how you're going to reconcile this blatant violation of elementary Greek grammar.

I am not going to repeat myself.

No one is denying what Jesus said. We are looking at the fact that it wasn't written that way in the Greek, and asking ourselves why would the author do this?????????????????????????
Why would the author IGNORE the seamless flow of these words and instead write "this rock" in the feminine form when there Is no reason to do so in the first place? He could just as easily have written it in the masculine in order for it to EXPLICITLY refer to Peter.

If I answer these questions, you will accuse me of repeating myself.

What would be nice is for you to address the issue of why the author chose to ignore your interpretation altogether.

What would be nice is for you to address the issue of why Luther was the first to emphasize word distinctions.

Maybe some time will inspire you to come up with some better schemes than these.

1 Cor. 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[shnarkle]

Matt. 16:13 from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

Sometimes people have a way of illustrating their own biases better than I could ever do. It's interesting to see someone who obviously see's a geographical location, and even notes the massive rock formation, yet still insists that Jesus must be referring to Simon. Jesus teaches along the Sea of Galilee and talks of being "fishers of men". He walks in fields, and speaks of "grain", yet when he is walking along a massive boulder commonly referred to as "the gates of hell", you think Jesus is referring to Simon.

Authoritive statements from well informed, respected authors who lived in that culture and language are not mere opinions,

The point you keep running away from is that none of them agree with the guy who actually wrote, or copied it down on parchment. How about the authoritive statement from the author himself??? In the Old Testament this is what is known as "Oral Tradition", which is fine as far as it goes, but when it is seen to surpass the word of God Himself then it has overstepped its bounds. You're welcome to your commentary; I'll stick with the Word.

I didn't really have any idea what or who "this rock" could be referring to entering into this discussion. All I knew was that a feminine article and noun can't refer to a masculine noun or name according to the laws of Greek grammar. But as this one sided discussion has progressed, it seems obvious that the Protestants are just as clueless as the Catholics. The irony is that you're the one who pointed out the obvious.
What better place to build a church than in this hell hole of a world we live in? Jesus didn't come to build some stone edifice for us to admire. He didn't come to put people in high places to rule over others. He didn't come so that men could wear extravagant robes, and burn incense with reverence and deference to Peter. Jesus came to conquer death. He came to proclaim victory over death and the grave. He did that through death in the grave. That's where the church is built.

It's built right on the gates of hell.

Conquerors always plant their banner and build their kingdoms on the ruins of their enemies.

 

[mjrhealth]

It was as i thought - Revelation

the done part

G601
ἀποκαλύπτω
apokaluptō
Thayer Definition:
1) to uncover, lay open what has been veiled or covered up
1a) disclose, make bare
2) to make known, make manifest, disclose what before was unknown
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G575 and G2572


the doing part

G602
ἀποκάλυψις
apokalupsis
Thayer Definition:
1) laying bear, making naked
2) a disclosure of truth, instruction
2a) concerning things before unknown
2b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3) manifestation, appearance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G601

That is what Jesus is building His chruch on not mens religion and doctrines.

 

[shnarkle]

It was as i thought - Revelation

the done part

G601
ἀποκαλύπτω
apokaluptō
Thayer Definition:
1) to uncover, lay open what has been veiled or covered up
1a) disclose, make bare
2) to make known, make manifest, disclose what before was unknown
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G575 and G2572


the doing part

G602
ἀποκάλυψις
apokalupsis
Thayer Definition:
1) laying bear, making naked
2) a disclosure of truth, instruction
2a) concerning things before unknown
2b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3) manifestation, appearance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G601

That is what Jesus is building His chruch on not mens religion and doctrines.

It should come as little surprise that revelation plays an integral role in the church. We wouldn't be having this discussion without the direct revelation of the Father to Peter. However, God meets us where we live, in our sinful flesh, in this sinful world. He comes to us and knocks on the gates of hell itself revealing to us our condition; we're dead. Ironically, it is Peter who reports that Christ proclaimed his victory over death from Tartarus itself (1 Peter 3:19)

 

[tom55]

Christ is the Rock not Peter,so therefore Peter cannot be the Rock of whom the Church is built... Bout to go to sleep now,will comment more later...

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So lets pretend that Peter is NOT the rock that Jesus built his church upon. What did the people that lived right after the apostles have to say? The Early Church Fathers CLEARLY understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter.

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the Church would be built with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth]? (Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 A.D. 200).

The Clementine Homilies [Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church (Clementine Homilies 17:19 A.D. 221).

I could go on and on throughout Church history to prove my point but at some point you have to do your own homework. Should we believe the Christians closest to Christ or the Christians who lived 1500 years later who decided that Peter wasn't The Rock? You decide. Scripture says he was The Rock. Christian History says he was The Rock. And there can be only one church. Not thousands with thousands of different doctrines which is the problem with Protestantism.

 

[mjrhealth]

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Its not who but what, read the line before , He never said "on you Peter".

 

[FHII]

Ephesians 2:20 KJV
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;

I have been thinking of this verse in light of this 1700 year debate. If you check for context you will see Paul is speaking about what Christ's church was built on. He didn't say "peter" was the foundation but he did say the Rock was the chief cornerstone.

 

[tom55]

Sometimes people have a way of illustrating their own biases better than I could ever do. It's interesting to see someone who obviously see's a geographical location, and even notes the massive rock formation, yet still insists that Jesus must be referring to Simon. Jesus teaches along the Sea of Galilee and talks of being "fishers of men". He walks in fields, and speaks of "grain", yet when he is walking along a massive boulder commonly referred to as "the gates of hell", you think Jesus is referring to Simon.

The point you keep running away from is that none of them agree with the guy who actually wrote, or copied it down on parchment. How about the authoritive statement from the author himself??? In the Old Testament this is what is known as "Oral Tradition", which is fine as far as it goes, but when it is seen to surpass the word of God Himself then it has overstepped its bounds. You're welcome to your commentary; I'll stick with the Word.

I didn't really have any idea what or who "this rock" could be referring to entering into this discussion. All I knew was that a feminine article and noun can't refer to a masculine noun or name according to the laws of Greek grammar. But as this one sided discussion has progressed, it seems obvious that the Protestants are just as clueless as the Catholics. The irony is that you're the one who pointed out the obvious.
What better place to build a church than in this hell hole of a world we live in? Jesus didn't come to build some stone edifice for us to admire. He didn't come to put people in high places to rule over others. He didn't come so that men could wear extravagant robes, and burn incense with reverence and deference to Peter. Jesus came to conquer death. He came to proclaim victory over death and the grave. He did that through death in the grave. That's where the church is built.

It's built right on the gates of hell.

Conquerors always plant their banner and build their kingdoms on the ruins of their enemies.

Protestants are just as clueless as the Catholics? So YOU are not clueless? What makes you right and Protestants or Catholics wrong?

He didn't come to put people in high places to rule over others? If no one will rule over us how do you explain the church hierarchy that was clearly set up by the Apostles?

Who will show us "the error of lawless men" and how we will "lose your own stability" (2 Pet. 3:17) if there is no one to rule over us and show us who the lawless men are? Does every Christian have an equal say as to who is lawless? Or do we take a vote and majority rules?

How are we to all speak the Truth as ONE if there is no ONE who has the authority to decide what is the Truth is?

 

[tom55]

Ephesians 2:20 KJV
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;

I have been thinking of this verse in light of this 1700 year debate. If you check for context you will see Paul is speaking about what Christ's church was built on. He didn't say "peter" was the foundation but he did say the Rock was the chief cornerstone.

Good job partially quoting scripture to fit your belief:

Ephesians 2:21-22...in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone and when the "whole structure" is "joined together" it grows into a holy temple. Peter, according Jesus, is the first part of that holy temple. You know Peter from scripture? He is the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church. You know which Church? The one the gates of hell shall not prevail against and is the pillar and foundation of Truth. The ONE we go to when we want to settle our differences. The same Peter he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to loosen and bind sins.

So when one looks at ALL OF SCRIPTURE (instead of only partially quoting it to fit ones agenda) we see what the TRUTH is.

And when one reads what the Church Fathers had to say about the matter it is abundantly clear that scripture and Christian History clearly supports Peter as The Rock that Jesus started his church upon. The same Peter who in scripture was CLEARLY the leader of the Apostles after Jesus death.

Unless of course you are suggesting that Tertullian, Origin, Cyprian and Jerome are wrong and you are right?

You said it yourself. It has been a 1700 year debate. That means for 300 years Christianity has believed opposite of what you believe. So should we believe the Christians who were alive for the first 300 years after Christ death or should we believe the alleged heretics that came along 300 years later?

 

[tom55]

[SIZE=12pt]Peters name was changed by Jesus. [/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]A name change in the Torah and Jewish society meant a change in status. A name change in the Bible was a significant change in status. The Jews in Jesus time knew this. Current Protestants forget this fact.[/SIZE]

Genesis 49:24 says that Joseph’s arm is strong in battle because it is upheld by "the shepherd, the rock of Israel." The shepherd and the rock are symbols of God’s care and support for his people. He told PETER (the rock) to feed my lambs, Take care of my sheep. Peter and Peter alone was assigned the role of the shepherd. OT and NT scripture is very clear about what a shepherd’s job is and the significance of it. In the Old Testament the powerful image of the rock repeatedly refers to God himself. The symbolism of keys was not an innovation introduced by Jesus. We find the same symbolism in ancient Israel when authority was passed from one to another. The prophet Isaiah foretells that Eliakim will take over the position second in authority to the king of Israel: “I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Isa. 22:22). Part of this authority is the power to bind and to loose. Again, in ancient Israel, this power was understood as the ability to teach authoritatively, to include or exclude someone from the community, and even to forgive a person’s sins. The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and specifically to Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.


Peter was recognized by other apostles as their first leader, the apostle they went too to settle differences. The name Peter, Simon or Cephas is mentioned 191 times in the NT and the only name mentioned more often is Jesus. This is especially significant when we recall that the Gospels were written many years after the historical events. When Peter is listed with the other apostles his name is always first or it is written as ‘Peter and the other apostles’. John is regarded as an equal to Peter and as is only mentioned 48 times. Peter walked on water, raised the dead, was the first man to see Jesus after the resurrection, preached the first gospel (Acts 2: 14-20). The people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by (Acts 5:15). He condemned Ananias and Sapphira who fell dead at his feet (Acts 5). Peter made the first doctrinal decision at the first Church Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). He declared that another apostle must be chosen in the place of Judas and they did exactly as he told them (Acts 1:15).

Downplay the scriptural and historical importance of Peter (The Rock of The Church) all you want. Scripture and Christian History doesn't. Only Protestants do.......How sad.

 

[FHII]

Good job partially quoting scripture to fit your belief:

Ephesians 2:21-22...in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone and when the "whole structure" is "joined together" it grows into a holy temple. Peter, according Jesus, is the first part of that holy temple. You know Peter from scripture? He is the rock upon which Jesus will build his Church. You know which Church? The one the gates of hell shall not prevail against and is the pillar and foundation of Truth. The ONE we go to when we want to settle our differences. The same Peter he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to loosen and bind sins.

So when one looks at ALL OF SCRIPTURE (instead of only partially quoting it to fit ones agenda) we see what the TRUTH is.

And when one reads what the Church Fathers had to say about the matter it is abundantly clear that scripture and Christian History clearly supports Peter as The Rock that Jesus started his church upon. The same Peter who in scripture was CLEARLY the leader of the Apostles after Jesus death.

Unless of course you are suggesting that Tertullian, Origin, Cyprian and Jerome are wrong and you are right?

You said it yourself. It has been a 1700 year debate. That means for 300 years Christianity has believed opposite of what you believe. So should we believe the Christians who were alive for the first 300 years after Christ death or should we believe the alleged heretics that came along 300 years later?

More BS from VatiSPIN City.

Jesus did not say Peter was the rock on whom he built his Church. Again, Peter is not an "it" nor is he a "this". It was the revelation hr brought which is what Christ built his Church on.

Furthermore.... Peter was not a preacher or apostle in charge of Rome. That was Paul and Jesus said so himself.

Furthermore ... Grevious wolves long consumed the church at Rome. Just like Paul sad they would.

You want to say I partially quoted Eph 2.... Fine. But what you quoted proves nothing in favor of Peter being the first Pope nor the first leader of Christ's present day Church.

 

[tom55]

More BS from VatiSPIN City.

Jesus did not say Peter was the rock on whom he built his Church. Again, Peter is not an "it" nor is he a "this". It was the revelation hr brought which is what Christ built his Church on.

Furthermore.... Peter was not a preacher or apostle in charge of Rome. That was Paul and Jesus said so himself.

Furthermore ... Grevious wolves long consumed the church at Rome. Just like Paul sad they would.

You want to say I partially quoted Eph 2.... Fine. But what you quoted proves nothing in favor of Peter being the first Pope nor the first leader of Christ's present day Church.

What does BS stand for?

 

[FHII]

Acts 23:10-11 KJV
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. [11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.


Paul was sentto Rome. Not Peter. If Peter was in Rome, he sure didn't bind anything on earth (much less in Heaven) with his ministry.

 

[FHII]

What does BS stand for?

Something pretty close to Barbara Streisand. But not quite.

Seriously Tom.... I don't believe you are that ignorant.

 

[tom55]

Acts 23:10-11 KJV
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. [11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.


Paul was sentto Rome. Not Peter. If Peter was in Rome, he sure didn't bind anything on earth (much less in Heaven) with his ministry.

So DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH and Ireneaus and Tertullian are all liars?

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time. (Letter to Pope Soter A.D. 170)

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 A.D. 189)

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200): “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [beheaded].”

William Jurgens in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene. It includes thirty references to this question and proves with FACTS, not your theory, that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”

Now I have do decide. Do I believe them or you? Tough decision but I have decided I believe __________________.

 

[tom55]

Something pretty close to Barbara Streisand. But not quite.

Seriously Tom.... I don't believe you are that ignorant.

I am not ignorant but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I should remind you of the CyB rules:

No vulgar/obscene language or images. We are mostly adults here, but younger audiences frequent this forum as well. Please refrain from using offensive language in light of this. This is, by far not, just limited to swearing, and includes graphic language or content of sexual nature.

Denominational Posts – Excessive posts either attempting to either push a single denomination (or group) or attacking another denomination are included in this rule.

When you write "More BS from VatiSPIN City." that sounds to me like you are attacking the RCC.

Was that your intent or would you like to clarify?

 

[FHII]

So DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH and Ireneaus and Tertullian are all liars?

You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time. (Letter to Pope Soter A.D. 170)

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 A.D. 189)

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200): “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [beheaded].”

William Jurgens in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene. It includes thirty references to this question and proves with FACTS, not your theory, that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”

Now I have do decide. Do I believe them or you? Tough decision but I have decided I believe __________________.

Acts 23:10-11 KJV
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. [11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.


I beleve Jesus and the Bible. Jesus sent Paul to Rome. Not Peter.

 

[FHII]

I am not ignorant but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I should remind you of the CyB rules:

No vulgar/obscene language or images. We are mostly adults here, but younger audiences frequent this forum as well. Please refrain from using offensive language in light of this. This is, by far not, just limited to swearing, and includes graphic language or content of sexual nature.

Denominational Posts – Excessive posts either attempting to either push a single denomination (or group) or attacking another denomination are included in this rule.

When you write "More BS from VatiSPIN City." that sounds to me like you are attacking the RCC.

Was that your intent or would you like to clarify?

Psalm 119:165 KJV
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.


Are you really offended?

Matthew 15:17 KJV
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?


What do you think Jesus was sayi g and would you have him banned?

Adult up bud... I am undeterred by your distractions. Peter still was never sent to Rome, nor to the gentiles. Its all Catholic Mythology as proven by the Bible.

 

[tom55]

Psalm 119:165 KJV
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.


Are you really offended?

Matthew 15:17 KJV
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?


What do you think Jesus was sayi g and would you have him banned?

Adult up bud... I am undeterred by your distractions. Peter still was never sent to Rome, nor to the gentiles. Its all Catholic Mythology as proven by the Bible.

I am offended.

To call what the RCC teaches "BS" is inflammatory and hateful. To say "adult up bud" is condescending and belittling to me.

Are you saying that the historical writings of the Church Fathers and the scholarly studies of a well respected Christian historian is a distraction? That is not a very good defense of your position. Your position lacks facts.

So I ask you again: Are DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH, Ireneaus and Tertullian liars?