Matthew 16:18 controversy

[De_Maria]

No. actually Steve-b, what I stated is a shared and long-tested principle of hermeneutics. I’m surprised that you didn’t know that.

Catholic hermeneutic is the Sacred Tradition that Jesus Christ passed down through the Church.

And this whole “leader” issue you’re caught up on is a tuff sell but I see you are determined to make Peter the leader of Paul, James, John and others no matter what.

It is the organization that Jesus established.

Jesus established his government in the following way, pay attention to what the Holy Spirit said

Ok, you too.

in Ephesians 2:20, the gentiles are now fellow citizens with the saints…

Correct. We find confirmation of this in Hebrews

12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

“having been built (past tense) on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corners stone.”

Awesome! Now, listen to the Holy Spirit. Is this the same Jesus who said?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now, the CHIEF cornerstone is saying that He built His Church upon another stone. Upon a person who was born by the name of Simon but He renamed “Cephas” or “Peter”, both of which means “stone” or “rock”.

So, are you denying the command of the Chief Cornerstone?

Just of few things to notice here: 1. This foundational layout of government is a finished work, in the words, “having been built.” This means that no one can come along and rebuild it or replace it. see 1st. Cor. 3:10 to substantiate it.

By whom was it built? By St. Paul? Or by Jesus? And if it was Jesus, who said, "upon this Rock I will build my Church? And to whom was He referring when He said that?

1. Notice that this foundation of apostles is in the plural, suggesting that each apostle is co-equal in authority. There is NO suggestion that Peter is singled out as an Apostle over the other Apostles. Pay attention to that because it is the word of the Lord.

Ok. Let’s pay attention to the Lord. Did the Lord say, "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church’? Yes, He did.

And was Eph 2:20 written by Our Lord? No.
And does St. Paul say, in Eph 2:20, “Don’t listen to Our Lord, He didn’t build the Church upon Peter. When I say foundation, I mean that we are all equal.” No. He doesn’t.

The foundation which Jesus Christ, the CHIEF cornerstone, built, has Peter as the Rock upon whom HE, JESUS, built His Church. That is the foundation which was built and St. Paul was not changing it.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

1. Thirdly, Jesus Christ Himself holds all of it together as the chief corner-stone of the foundation.

True. And Jesus Christ built it all upon Simon, whom He renamed Peter, the Rock, because it is Peter who now represents God.

The Spirit of God has set this government in place at it’s inception and hasn’t changed His mind.

Correct. Then Protestants came around 1500 years later and divided the Church and changed the meaning of the Scriptures to fit their human teachings.

Ponder on it my friend. Consider what the word of the Lord says here. Repent over it if need be.

That is good advice for you.

see Eph. 3:5; 4:11 Jude 1:17; Acts 14:4

Let’s look at them.

Ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

That speaks of the Eucharist, which is the mystery which was made known by Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

That speaks to the organization of the Church. It does not mention the Chief Shepherd, the Pope. But it does not deny it, either. And we have that spelled out in John 21:15-17.

Acts 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.

I guess you’re referring to the fact that St. Paul said they were not gods. So did St. John and St. Peter when they cured the cripple and the crowd had the same reaction. But, what happened to Ananias when he lied to Peter in Acts 5? Why did that happen?

 

[HarryStotle]

Steve-b

I’m sure I have bias, everyone does. But I will not allow my bias to make stuff up. If I do that, I’d rather stop reading the bible.

Some people read the bible to hopefully extract there information there to form solid and established doctrine. Other’s read the bible with a pre-conceived bias of what it should mean and what they believe it should mean, then force the passage to mean it as in this last case.

But then again, that is nothing more than my opinion.

blessings,

You almost have a point here.

You are, however, forgetting that it is always easier to deny a positive than to prove it, especially if someone is unwilling to accept a truth claim.

So, for you to say, “I will not allow my bias to make stuff up,” simply means that your bias is confirmed by not accepting positive claims. Biases are always easier to hold and harder to detect when they rest easy in simply not accepting all the positive claims that require justification and hold onto a non-position that doesn’t require anything in the way of justification except a simple denial of any positive claim. That is why atheism is an easier position to hold than theism because atheism is supposedly a non-claim or “lack of belief” in God. No hard work of justifying that when all you need do is hand wave and repeat, “I don’t find that argument convincing,” and put all the onus is on the other person, because your supposed lack of bias is intent upon staying neutral with regard to the subject.

That is pretty much all you need to do regarding claims about Peter, hand wave and claim, “I don’t find that proof text convincing.”

Just like the atheist who insists he is not biased against belief in the existence of God, but just hasn’t heard a good argument, you can insist no bias because you are open to being convinced about Peter, but no one has offered you a convincing argument from Scripture. What would a convincing argument look like?

 

[steve-b]

cont’d

1. Thirdly, Jesus Christ Himself holds all of it together as the chief corner-stone of the foundation.

:smiley:nicely done