A
adf417
Guest
Did you read post #34?
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Okay…Pontifex Maximus: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a104.htm
Title “Pontifex Maximus” or “Supreme Pontiff”
<< One of the most amazing aspects about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope as the “Pontifex Maximus” or, Supreme Pontiff. The title Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not applied to a Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the “King of Heathendom”, the evil high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. It is certainly not likely that Christ appointed Peter “Pontifex Maximus” of Rome. >>
Of course Christ didn’t appoint Peter to be the Pontifex Maximus. And of course the early Church Fathers spoke of the Pontifex Maximus in such derogatory, paganistic ways. Because when the early Fathers were writing, the Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Roman pagan religion, and the Roman Empire itself was pagan. As any student of Roman history knows, the Pontifex Maximus was an imperial office, usually held by the Emperor himself, which made one the “chief priest” of the Roman “state cult.”
As for Tertullian’s reference to Pontifex Maximus (cited by our critic above), this is most interesting indeed since, despite our critic’s spin on things, it is a powerful proof for the authority of the early Roman Papacy. As already described by both the author and myself, Tertullian was (at the time) a Montanist heretic who clashed with Pope Callistus I (c. 220 AD) over Callistus’ relaxation of the Church’s penitential discipline, allowing repentant adulterers and fornicators back into the Church, even if they were “repeat offenders.”
Now, as our critic pointed out, Callistus cited his Petrine authority to “bind and loosen” to validate his decree. In response, the heretical Tertullian has this to say:
“In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The ‘Pontifex Maximus,’ that is the ‘bishop of bishops,’ issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, ‘Good deed!’ …Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!” (On Modesty 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers IV:74)
Now Tertullian is obviously being sarcastic in calling Pope Callistus by such names as “bishop of bishops” and “Pontifex Maximus” – both of these titles, as I said, being imperial pagan ones at this time (c. 220 AD). However, the mere fact that Tertullian (a heretic) is referring to the Pope this way, shows that Pope Callistus wielded authority outside of his own bishopric and throughout the universal Church.
Indeed, Tertullian continues to criticize Pope Callistus, saying:
“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to that of Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)
So, what does this tell us? While Tertullian (a Montanist heretic, who at this time did not recognize Apostolic succession or any Church authority) criticizes it, the fact is clear that here in 220 AD, Pope Callistus is claiming authority based on his direct succession from St. Peter and using that authority to change a Church discipline that remained changed from then on. This fact cannot be avoided. In other words, the view of the heretic Tertullian was not the view of the rest of the universal Church.
P
pablope
Guest
M
Matt_Guitar_Man
Guest
Just for interest.
One’s theology can probably not get more pagan than the JW theology of The God creating a god (minor god) who then went on to create all other things.
This is pagan theology through and through, nearly all pagan religions have this hierarchy of gods, and is one of the reasons why Arianism was so attractive to the northern European tribes because it so easily fit their already existing religious structure.
When JW’s insist upon this pagan origin of the Catholic Church and trot out the same protestant arguments that have been used over the last 500 years, almost word for word from Alexander Hisslop’s the “Two Babylon’s”, and once again we have to put up with the tired old strained reasoning of “Petros & Petra” from the Greek which one can read in the footnotes of any good protestant Bible translation from Schofeild to the NIV.
One wonders if they have reflected at all upon what the Watch Tower is actually teaching them or if they just swallow it whole hook line and sinker? This question is usually answered in the negative as one observes the JW’s satisfaction of the AH-HA, Gotcha moment as if these tired old arguments are something new.
One’s theology can probably not get more pagan than the JW theology of The God creating a god (minor god) who then went on to create all other things.
This is pagan theology through and through, nearly all pagan religions have this hierarchy of gods, and is one of the reasons why Arianism was so attractive to the northern European tribes because it so easily fit their already existing religious structure.
When JW’s insist upon this pagan origin of the Catholic Church and trot out the same protestant arguments that have been used over the last 500 years, almost word for word from Alexander Hisslop’s the “Two Babylon’s”, and once again we have to put up with the tired old strained reasoning of “Petros & Petra” from the Greek which one can read in the footnotes of any good protestant Bible translation from Schofeild to the NIV.
One wonders if they have reflected at all upon what the Watch Tower is actually teaching them or if they just swallow it whole hook line and sinker? This question is usually answered in the negative as one observes the JW’s satisfaction of the AH-HA, Gotcha moment as if these tired old arguments are something new.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
So the thread is about disputing an unbroken line of papal succession and no evidence has been presented.
Instead, we have various red-herrings, rabbit holes, and arguments about a title…
Got it.
Request for closing, please.
Instead, we have various red-herrings, rabbit holes, and arguments about a title…
Got it.
Request for closing, please.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Andrewgraham…Pope Benedict explains the origin of the dates of Christmas and Easter than have nothing to do with paganism…there was an initial reaction to ancient Roman paganism of the sun that earliest Christians reacted to.
But the Jewish holidays, the feast of the Incarnation, Passover, Easter, the Jewish calendar and cycles…universal Christianity is truly the fulfillment/completion of Judaism and its feasts.
Try to get a hold of Cardinal Ratzinger’s ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’, that goes into alot of detail about the dates…and it explains that actual date of Easter…having nothing to do with any pagan holiday or deity.
But the Jewish holidays, the feast of the Incarnation, Passover, Easter, the Jewish calendar and cycles…universal Christianity is truly the fulfillment/completion of Judaism and its feasts.
Try to get a hold of Cardinal Ratzinger’s ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’, that goes into alot of detail about the dates…and it explains that actual date of Easter…having nothing to do with any pagan holiday or deity.
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
Below are the papers (initially one) consisting of Parts I, II and III, which examines the title “Pontifex Maximus” which is annexed to the Catholic “Pope”, it touches on other matters as well, and as it was initially all one paper, I have included all three parts, broken down for simplicity and easier reading! I have put links to my papers, as they are too long for here!
By: A Graham (aka: letusreason)
Pontifex Maximus and the Catholic claims? P I
The seven kings of Rome?
Catholic Title Pope - Pontiff - It’s True Origin?
Origin of the Office of ‘Pope, Pontiff, Pontifex Maximus?
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Pontifex Maximus is still considered to be one of the “most noteworthy of the titles” borne by the pope. In French the pope is still called “le souverain pontife”, [the supreme pontiff].
And just to repeat the words of the historian Edward Gibbon,
". . . Within a few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been abolished, it was revived . . . and was bestowed, with all the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from that time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing Christendom, . . . all the other doctrines of Paganism derived from ancient Babylon. . . .”!
Apostles, Sub-Apostolic, Apologists and Fathers of the Early Church…
letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/pontifex-maximus-and-the-catholic-claims
Pontifex Maximus and the Catholic claims? Pt II
Testing the Chain of Papal Successors
The following article is contributed
CATHOLICS claim that Pope Pius XII receives his authority through a long and continuous line of successors, each of whom sat upon the papal throne by divine appointment.
Says the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The history of the Catholic Church from St. Peter, the first pontiff, to . . . the present head of the Church is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of successors.”
In part I of the “Pontifex Maximus and the Catholic claims?” it was shown that Peter was not the first “Pontiff” and that that title or insignia was annexed to the Roman emperors from the time of Augustus onwards, but here the Catholic Encyclopaedia makes a different claim and such a claim that the Papal line [chain] is completely intact and unbroken! But is that really the truth of the matter? It will now bw demonstrated that “Peter’s chair” has been vacant, not just for weeks or months, but for more than three years…and that there has been breaks in tha Papal chain…!
Testing the Chain of Papal Successors
Here is a comprehensive list of Popes from taken from the Online Catholic Encyclopaedia, New Advent.
Pontiffs, Pontifex Maximus
Taken from the Online Catholic Encyclopaedia, New Advent
Catholic New Advent list of Popes
letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/pontifex-maximus-and-the-catholic-claims-p-ii
Pontifex Maximus and Catholic claims? P III
The Catholic Church’s Hidden Disgrace and Shame!
Would God and Christ really use such an immoral and corrupt institution
The information below is freely available on the internet for all to see and their sources and is as is, unaltered!
At the Second Council of Arles in 443AD, it was debated that…
letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/pontifex-maximus-and-catholic-claims-p-iii
By: A Graham (aka: letusreason)
Pontifex Maximus and the Catholic claims? P I
The seven kings of Rome?
Catholic Title Pope - Pontiff - It’s True Origin?
Origin of the Office of ‘Pope, Pontiff, Pontifex Maximus?
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Pontifex Maximus is still considered to be one of the “most noteworthy of the titles” borne by the pope. In French the pope is still called “le souverain pontife”, [the supreme pontiff].
And just to repeat the words of the historian Edward Gibbon,
". . . Within a few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been abolished, it was revived . . . and was bestowed, with all the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from that time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing Christendom, . . . all the other doctrines of Paganism derived from ancient Babylon. . . .”!
Apostles, Sub-Apostolic, Apologists and Fathers of the Early Church…
letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/pontifex-maximus-and-the-catholic-claims
Pontifex Maximus and the Catholic claims? Pt II
Testing the Chain of Papal Successors
The following article is contributed
CATHOLICS claim that Pope Pius XII receives his authority through a long and continuous line of successors, each of whom sat upon the papal throne by divine appointment.
Says the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The history of the Catholic Church from St. Peter, the first pontiff, to . . . the present head of the Church is an evident proof of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of successors.”
In part I of the “Pontifex Maximus and the Catholic claims?” it was shown that Peter was not the first “Pontiff” and that that title or insignia was annexed to the Roman emperors from the time of Augustus onwards, but here the Catholic Encyclopaedia makes a different claim and such a claim that the Papal line [chain] is completely intact and unbroken! But is that really the truth of the matter? It will now bw demonstrated that “Peter’s chair” has been vacant, not just for weeks or months, but for more than three years…and that there has been breaks in tha Papal chain…!
Testing the Chain of Papal Successors
Here is a comprehensive list of Popes from taken from the Online Catholic Encyclopaedia, New Advent.
Pontiffs, Pontifex Maximus
Taken from the Online Catholic Encyclopaedia, New Advent
Catholic New Advent list of Popes
letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/pontifex-maximus-and-the-catholic-claims-p-ii
Pontifex Maximus and Catholic claims? P III
The Catholic Church’s Hidden Disgrace and Shame!
Would God and Christ really use such an immoral and corrupt institution
The information below is freely available on the internet for all to see and their sources and is as is, unaltered!
At the Second Council of Arles in 443AD, it was debated that…
letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/pontifex-maximus-and-catholic-claims-p-iii
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
…
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
Reply,
It doesn’t wash!
Re: “Pope Callistus”?
The problem here, is as I pointed out previously, is that there was no so-called “Pope”, never mind a so-called “Pope Callistus”!
You seem to be using the title “Pope” in its traditional sense, that is clearly wrong. here is how and why!
All bishops, before and including Damasus, who were Primate Bishops, having jurisdiction over their “sees” i.e. areas (e.g. Rome, Antioch, Athens…) were called “papa” or “pope”, no one bishop was over another and no bishop had authority over another; the apostle Peter was never a “Pope” and the “Church” was founded on Christ ( [Petra, feminine and meaning an unmovable Rock Mass, a Massive Rock…] whereas, Peter [Petros, masculine and meaning small stone, small rock, easily lifted]) NOT Peter, who went out and denied him some time later and then had to be publically reprimanded by the apostle Paul for his hypocrisy…!
The title “Pope” in the traditional sense was a later invention, by power hungry Roman Primate Bishops, starting especially with the violent, ambitious and corrupt Damasus, it was only when the Roman church began to be very powerful, that she began to exert her influence and demand for herself excusive rights and with the help of the Roman Political System (James 4:4)
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
Have a look at 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Heb 1:9; 1 Pet 1:3 and Rev 3:12, 14!
In John 17:3 Jesus calls the Father “you, the only true God”*, if such is the case, then what sort of a “God” is Jesus, is he a false “God” or is he “a God” or “a god”?
- Notice the use of the singular pronoun and adjective with reference to the noun “God” i.e. “you” (Greek - se) and “only” (Greek - monon) and in fact, only singular pronouns are to be seen with the use of the term “God” in both the OT and the NT and no personal pronouns are ever used of the pneuma hagion (holy spirit) except in biased ENGLISH translations, where the pronouns are deliberately changed from the impersonal to the personal, from the Greek impersonal pronoun “ho” [which/it] to the English “he, him…” giving the false impression, that the English is the same as the Greek “hos” [he. him…] it isn’t, but then one would have to know Greek to verify this!
The reply you present above about JWs is typical of Catholics, their spin, clichés, rhetoric and polemics, all off the shelf and worn out, I get it much of the time!
Incidentally, the bible calls angels and men “gods”, as well as “lords”, but I’m sure you already knew that???
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
Reply,
“Learn from the Source”?
"Such an infallible teaching:
Cannot be a new teaching, only one the Church has always cherished and believed
Has come to need to be defined in a special way (perhaps it has been challenged)
Regards the Church’s teachings regarding faith and/or morals
Becomes unquestionably binding at this point
It has nothing to do with making a pope incapable of sin.
Learn from the Source"
Let’s take an example “from the source”!
"Such an infallible teaching:
Cannot be a new teaching, only one the Church has always cherished and believed"
Immortal Soul?
I have in front of me my old 1971 pocket edition Catechism and it reads:
Ques,
“How is my soul like unto God”?
Ans,
“My soul is like unto God because it is a spirit and is immortal”
Ques,
“What do you mean by immortal”?
Ans,
“I mean by immortal, that my soul can never die”!
(End of extract)
Catholic Douay Bible, says the direct opposite, where it tells it readers, that the soul can die (Ezek 18:4, 20) that it can be saved from death (James 5:20) and that Jesus himself said, that a soul can be destroyed!
I don’t at this point wish to discuss what the meaning of “soul” is by the fact that the CC says under its Pope:
"Such an infallible teaching:
Cannot be a new teaching, only one the Church has always cherished and believed"
How is it, that with one side of its mouth the church says one thing and yet with the other, the opposite, how can the CC say one thing and yet another simultaneously and in one of its pieces of literature, tell her faithful one thing and at the exact same moment yet another?
How can the soul be immortal* yet can also “die” can be “saved” and can be “destroyed”?
The definition of immortality is this, as seen in John 5:26, where Jesus upon his being resurrected by another (the Father) is “granted/given” immortality i.e. “life in himself”:
“…just as he has life in himself, so too, he has granted unto the son also to have life in himself…”
It is self generating life, life that cannot die, be dissolved or be made subject to corruption, cannot be made subject to death…yet, this was granted to the son upon his resurrection as a spirit being (1 Cor 15:45, 50; Gal 1:11, 12) and the anointed holy ones are to receive, upon their resurrection such a gift of immortality, the Father has such “life”, now that son and the holy ones have it…!
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
While it can be said there is much obscure about the earliest sources of Popes, especially their lives or what exactly they accomplished, that’s not the same as suggesting the succession of the Bishops of Rome was broken. Does the Jehovah’s witness posit an argument that there was a split at some point within the roman church in which I suppose the true party which was faithful to God ceased to exist? We have sources like Iraneaus and seemingly no good reason to dismiss what he says concerning the succession. And if Clement represents the thoughts of Rome at that early time to the Corinthian church where is the break exactly in succession?
It can only be in these obscure years due to a lack of sources detailing the period. But its up to the JW to make the argument that the succession was broken at that time.
It can only be in these obscure years due to a lack of sources detailing the period. But its up to the JW to make the argument that the succession was broken at that time.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
As Trinitarian Christianity acknowledges, God is one (Dt 6:4).
Jn 16:13 οταν δε ελθη εκεινος το πνευμα της αληθειας
Despite πνευμα being grammatically neuter, εκεινος is masculine, and this gender is repeated in the next verse. It is most likely κατα συνεσιν, demonstrating how the Gospel writer thought of the Spirit.
It is also worth mentioning that Lk 9:47 has επιλαβομενος παιδιου εστησεν αυτο παρ εαυτω, using a neuter pronoun for the grammatically-neuter child, and it would be peculiar to claim that this makes the child “impersonal”, not least when the same grammatically-neuter term is used for the child Jesus in Lk 2:40. In Greek, grammatical neutrality did not mean impersonality: it meant irrelevance of gender.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I have my own doubts regarding the perfect continuity of the Roman episcopate, but neither of these quotes demonstrates anything other than the proper intellectual care and honesty on the part of the historians. Given that we are talking about something far back in history, an imperfect record is only to be expected. Discontinuity of records does not demonstrate discontinuity in the subject (the episcopate).
K
KathleenGee
Guest
In ancient Christianity, Rome was always the dominant church; it provided funds to build new churches and was the final place of authority in settling disputes.
I remember reading about a protestant who spent 27 years trying to disprove apostolic succession, and he found out the Catholic Church was right.
There has been no unbroken line, but that does not mean every pope was good. The first title was bishop of Rome, but as the Church grew in complexity and size, the need for a defined figurehead of unity was developed.
In terms of hierarchy and authority, we must look first to Christ and find our communion with Him in the Holy Trinity, experience the life of Christ in Word and Eucharist. This is our center of faith, and it is Christ we are focusing on in the Holy Father and the Church.
Just as Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, we believe in Christ alone, His Word and Sacrament. I think Protestants separate the person of the pope from Christ, and think we see the pope as some sort of god.
As my old pastor said many years ago, listen to what I teach but do not look at me.
I remember reading about a protestant who spent 27 years trying to disprove apostolic succession, and he found out the Catholic Church was right.
There has been no unbroken line, but that does not mean every pope was good. The first title was bishop of Rome, but as the Church grew in complexity and size, the need for a defined figurehead of unity was developed.
In terms of hierarchy and authority, we must look first to Christ and find our communion with Him in the Holy Trinity, experience the life of Christ in Word and Eucharist. This is our center of faith, and it is Christ we are focusing on in the Holy Father and the Church.
Just as Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, we believe in Christ alone, His Word and Sacrament. I think Protestants separate the person of the pope from Christ, and think we see the pope as some sort of god.
As my old pastor said many years ago, listen to what I teach but do not look at me.
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
Reply,
On “Catholic Answers” forum discussing with Trinitarians, the use of certain pronouns in regard to Father Son and holy spirit; below, is what I posted to one Catholic, another responded with…(See below my post)
[Andrew]
“no personal pronouns are ever used of the pneuma hagion (holy spirit) except in biased ENGLISH translations, where the pronouns are deliberately changed from the impersonal to the personal, from the Greek impersonal pronoun “ho” [which/it] to the English “he, him…” giving the false impression, that the English is the same as the Greek “hos” [he. him…] it isn’t, but then one would have to know Greek to verify this!”
IgnatianPhilo (Catholic Answers) said:
The above goes under the nickname “Mystophilus” on the “Catholic Answers” forum.
Despite πνευμα being grammatically neuter, εκεινος is masculine, and this gender is repeated in the next verse. It is most likely κατα συνεσιν, demonstrating how the Gospel writer thought of the Spirit.
It is also worth mentioning that Lk 9:47 has επιλαβομενος παιδιου εστησεν αυτο παρ εαυτω, using a neuter pronoun for the grammatically-neuter child, and it would be peculiar to claim that this makes the child “impersonal”, not least when the same grammatically-neuter term is used for the child Jesus in Lk 2:40. In Greek, grammatical neutrality did not mean impersonality: it meant irrelevance of gender. <<
My response!
I will deal with John 16:13 first and then move on.
The above is typical of the Trinitarian mentality, in that one verse is picked out (John 16:13) and then interpreted in the usual Trinitarian fashion and as usual, ignoring the wider context of the surrounding verses of John 16!
Here is John 16:13 from Catholic Douay and the NWT
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.” DY
“However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming.” NWT
It would appear from this one verse, and at first glance… that Trinitarians think that the antecedent noun that is seen with pronoun “ἐκεῖνος” [ekeinos] is “pneuma” (“Spirit” Dy)! Why is this conclusion wrong?
Here is How & Why
We need to look at the broader context of the relating verses in connection with John 16:13, so I will choose another Catholic bible, the NASB and we will look at John 16:1-16.
“These things I have spoken to you so that you may be kept from stumbling. 2 They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. 3 These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. 4 But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5 “But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
16 “A little while, and you will no longer see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me.”
Comments
See Part II
M
Mystophilus
Guest
If a πετρος were small and easily lifted, Homer would not have used it as a synonym for a χερμαδιον (boulder) so heavy that ου δυο γ’ ανδρε φεροιεν (even two men could not lift it - Il 20.286). If πετρα were immovable, Homer would not have used it for a θυρεος (doorstone) which Polyphemos moves back and forth to block the mouth of his cave (Od 9.243, 313).
While πετρα and πετρος are not identical, neither are they as unrelated as you (mis)represent them. The Greek Fathers, reading the Scriptures in their own language, understood this.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
A
andrewgraham195
Guest
Reply,
Mere word play!
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
“<1,4073,petra>
denotes “a mass of rock,” as distinct from petros, “a detached stone or boulder,” or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, “because it had been well builded”); Rev. 6:15,16 (cp. Isa. 2:19,ff.; Hos. 10:8); Luke 8:6,13, used illustratively; 1 Cor. 10:4 (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the Apostle, is clear.”
- Status