MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[Jesus700]

You cannot surely say that Peter was the rock on which Jesus intended to build His church??? In Matthew 16:18, the Greek word Christ uses is ‘petra’ and means ‘small rock or pebble’. ‘Petros’, however, means ‘Peter’ and Jesus is using a play on the similarity in sounds of these two words to illustrate how unsuitable Peter would be as a basis for His Church. It is a JOKE that Christ was making, in my opinion ( and Derek Prince’s, too - see his book Foundational Truths, pages 3-5) - for how do you build a church of almighty God on a pebble?
Also - Peter was called ‘Satan’ by Jesus in Matthew 16:22-23, Peter famously denies Jesus three times a little later on in the Gospels and, even after Pentecost, Peter was reprimanded by Paul for compromising concerning the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).
So please ask the Holy Spirit to tell you - was Peter ever really supposed to be the rock on which the Church was built? In my opinion (and Derek Prince’s and anyone who reads the New Testament - especially, if possible, in its original Greek) he was used by Christ as a way of showing how very irresponsible a person he was (though a born leader) - and how unsuitable, therefore, he was as a basis for the Church.
Let us remember Paul’s words regarding foundations, inspired by the Holy Spirit: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ’ (1 Corinthians 3:11)

Hi, Janet1983,

This took me a little longer than I initially anticipated. So, here goes - Page 1 of 2

As you probably guessed, I have some concerns about your post - but, what I want to do is to stick to the thread. But, first - a working definition. The idea of a logical presentation is that it does not contain either inconsistencies or contradictions. I think once these are in place the finer points of logical discourse tend to fall into place… So, let’s begin…

To the best of my knowledge, Luther wound up doing quite a lot of picking and choosing. For example, here are two items for your consideration:
1.) For about 1,500 years (prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Church had Seven Sacraments - Luther decided his followers only needed 2.
2.) The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Holy Scripture in about 400AD through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) - Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide.
As I see it, ‘picking and choosing’ was a way of life for Luther. If you do not believe you are picking and choosing - yet use Luther as your role model, I see this as an internal contradiction in your statement.
.

People may claim to follow Christ in the abstract - but for the day-to-aspects of life, following Christ is a practical exercise. Christ established His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18) and gave Peter the authority to bind and lose. Christ did not come back and revoke this gift and give it to Luther. If you calim to follow Christ, but reject the Church He founded (and, that would be the Catholic Church, I would see that as an internal contradiction. We are required for the very health of our humanity to conform our behavior to our belief. Most find it easier to conform their belief to their behavior…

On of the problems with evaluating one’s self is that unless there is a mirror or another person around, it is easy to miss something. For example, you may run a comb or brush through your hair - but, to see if your hair is the way you want it, you need something outside of yourself - like a mirror. If others are raising a flag about your logical presentations, maybe this is the time to step back and take a look at it.

To the best of my knowledge, there are few prerequisites to making a logical choice. One must be of sound mind, be free of chemical or physical impediments and have sufficient information to make a choice. As I see it, these are pretty standard throughout the human race. While more items can be added - I do not think I missed any essential ones. Luther wound up doing quite a lot of picking and choosing.

Continued

 

[benedictus2]

I think specifically what is at issue is the nature of her excommunication and it’s lifting. Do we see her renouncing all her beliefs/protests about the abuses of the laity by the clergy (I see neglect as abuse), because she conformed to the Bishops rule since doesn’t she owe obedience to that Bishop? Or was the it the Bishop who changed his mind and agreed that he was neglecting his flock?

Okay really the last one for the night.

The protest and abuse was the not the issue. If Luther had just stuck to the protest, things would have ended differently.

Luther took it further - he created the man made doctrines and adjusted the Bible to suit his doctrines.

Look, Catholics are in agreement with Protestants that the Church heirarchy during his time was corrupt. My sister said you can really understand why Luther was so angry. If it had remained at justified anger then that would have been okay.

The reason you are now Protestant and remain so is because Luther came up with new doctrines. Doctrines are what separate us.

Here at CAF you can see that. There is always debate going on whether this or that doctrine is right, or this or that passage in the Bible should be interpreted this way or that. That is Luther’s legacy.

The corruption in the Papcy is past, we have moved on (new and improved) but the separation remains.

An aside: New and improved is such a stupid terminology. How can something new be improved and how can something improved be new

As for Mary McKillop’s excommunication, the Bishop was misinformed that Mary was defying his orders. In fact all Mary wanted to do was to be able to speak personally to the Bishop so she can present her case directly to him. The legate twisted the story and told the Bishop that she was defying him.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh for goodness sake, I was about to log off so I can go to sleep, now you are keeping me awake.

You cannot surely say that Peter was the rock on which Jesus intended to build His church??? In Matthew 16:18, the Greek word Christ uses is ‘petra’ and means ‘small rock or pebble’. ‘Petros’, however, means ‘Peter’ and Jesus is using a play on the similarity in sounds of these two words to illustrate how unsuitable Peter would be as a basis for His Church.

Please extend your reading far beyond whatever manufactured lie you are basing this exegesis on.

This has been debunked 100 times over here at CAF.

A summation:
The petros/petra controversy is non existent.
When Jesus spoke - He spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha.
This is how it would have gone. “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Chuch” Straight English translation : “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”.

We know this for a fact because Paul called Peter Cephas and Jesus did too in John 1.

The reason for calling Simon, Peter, is because in Greek, objects have gender. To call Simon- a burly fisherman - by the femine name Petra would have been absurd. So when they translated it to Greek they gave him the male equivalent which is Peter.

It is a JOKE that Christ was making, in my opinion ( and Derek Prince’s, too - see his book Foundational Truths, pages 3-5) - for how do you build a church of almighty God on a pebble?

No you’re knowledge is the joke.

I didn’t check your membership but I think you must be new. Stick around check the threads. Most likely whatever argument you are putting forward has already been debunked many times before.

And what is it with this tendency of evangelicals to negate the Gospel by quoting Paul?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jesus700,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this site to be a real source of knowledge, inspiraiton and insight.

Now, let’s get started … but I apparently was not able to respond to your post in one page This is page 1 of 2

You cannot surely say that Peter was the rock on which Jesus intended to build His church???

Surely, Jesus700, this is exactaly what I am saying. But, please, open your heart and mind to the entire Chapter in Matthew 16. In my opinion, one of the major problems with snipet exchanges or verse wars is that they tend to myopicly focus on one tiny aspect to the exclusion of the context that the verse is contained in. Something like the penny held up to the eye blots out the sun.

In Matthew 16:18, the Greek word Christ uses is ‘petra’ and means ‘small rock or pebble’. ‘Petros’, however, means ‘Peter’ and Jesus is using a play on the similarity in sounds of these two words to illustrate how unsuitable Peter would be as a basis for His Church. It is a JOKE that Christ was making, in my opinion ( and Derek Prince’s, too - see his book Foundational Truths, pages 3-5) - for how do you build a church of almighty God on a pebble?

Actually, Benedictus2 provided you with an excellent answer. But, let me try this from another perspective. Here are the 12 gatered with Jesus in this dramatic setting at Caesera Philipi - now imagine they are talking about anything - just what language do you think these 12 men from the Judea area are speaking amongst themselves? You may know one or more foreign languages - but, when you are with your friends who all speak the same language - what are you going to use to talk to them?

The fact that Christ’s words are usually recorded in Greek does not mean He spoke those words in Greek at the time. In my opinion, there is a legitimate difference in objectives between the message that Christ physically spoke at the time of a particular utterance - and the objectives of the Inspired Gospel Writers in reducing these words and actions to writing. The simple response is that more people read Greek than Aramaic - and the Writers were not pitching this Word of God to a select group who were literate in a truly minority language.

Finally, some languages (like French, Spanish and Greek) identify a gender to a noun - and in English unless there is a living thing with a gender (bacteria a asexual) it is considered neuter. It takes a minute to focus on this distiction - so that a word like ‘rock’ being feminine in Greek does not properly match up in the sentence with a word like ‘Peter’ which is masucline. We do not have any issue like this in general English usage.

Also - Peter was called ‘Satan’ by Jesus in Matthew 16:22-23, Peter famously denies Jesus three times a little later on in the Gospels and, even after Pentecost, Peter was reprimanded by Paul for compromising concerning the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).

You are so right about this, Jesus700! And, just so you realize the significance of your observations - let me add one more and this would be from Matthew 16:16-17:

**16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. **

So, if you believe that God that actually selected Peter from amongst the 12 - and Christ acknowledged this divinely revealed fact and then selected Peter to be the leader, to have the keys of authority and to bind and lose whatever he chose, that’s great. But, if I read your post correctly the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that either God the Father made a mistake! God the Son jumped on this by calling His Father’s selection an error becaue Peter is a devil and all of the subsequent verses you provide here reinforce that God is in a state of utter chaos for having made such incredible mistakes

I am serious as a heart attack. Either you acknowledge that: God is All Powerful and All Knowing and All Truthful - and in this case this means that from all Eternity God knew He would select Peter to be the leader of the Apostles and the First Pope, that Christ would publicly announce this selection - and that Peter would clearly demonstrate human weakness and frailty and sinfulness throughout his life - but, he would lead the Chruch of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) or, you don’t.

So, what is it? Did God make a mistake here or didn’t He? You can not have it both ways. Either you acknowledge the Providence of God in all things or your reject it. There is no arugment for God being only All Knowing when it agrees with your view. I was delighted to see that you copied the section I wrote to Janet1985 about a logical presentation can not have inconsistencies or internal contradictions. As I see it, your presentation has both.

Continued -

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jesus700,

This is page 2 of 2

So please ask the Holy Spirit to tell you - was Peter ever really supposed to be the rock on which the Church was built? In my opinion (and Derek Prince’s and anyone who reads the New Testament - especially, if possible, in its original Greek) he was used by Christ as a way of showing how very irresponsible a person he was (though a born leader) - and how unsuitable, therefore, he was as a basis for the Church.

Actually, the Holy Spirit - promised by Christ to guide His Church and teach it all truth (John 16:13) - (yeah, that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church … there were no Protestants around at the time… ) has already spoken on the matter: Peter is the leader and so are his successors!

One of the things I personally have found most amazing with the usual Protestant argument - such as you presented - is the effective view that if any organization is going to fail, the chances are very great that it will fail in its beginnings rather than in its maturity. And, just look at the beginnings - early on there was a major internal threat caused by the Judiazers but resolved by the proclamation of Peter that circumcision (the sign of the Covenant given to Abraham by God Himself!) is no longer necessary. Later on we hear of the Roman Empire persecuting the Jews and Christians the Jews had already been persecuting the Christians. With people chosing between worshiping Jesus Christ in the Church founded by Him (yeah, on Peter!) or being thrown to the lions for not worshiping the Emperor - do you honestly think at a man-made organization, filled with the traditions of men, could withstand such an external threat? The Holy Spirit was in charge of Christ’s Church in 1517 - and notice - while sinful men were in leadership, the Holy Spirit ensured that NO ERROR WAS TAUGHT. This is not an issue about correct doctrine (the Catholic Church has provided that) but rather proper behavior in following this doctrine.

I had to look this up… Derek Prince [1915-2003] was an international Protestant radio Bible teacher - but has nothing constructive to add here! And, the reason for this is that he like all of the others following in the pattern of Luther, believes he can rightly interpret Scripture. The proof of their ability is to look at the number of errors they have consistently come up with - in fact Sola Scriptura has spawned over 20,000+ groups, sects, assemblies, congregations, meetings, gatherings - all claiming to be the ‘Church of Christ’ yet all preaching different doctrines and all worshiping the traditions of men rather than Christ through His Church. The late D. Prince missed the boat and even in death is continuing to mislead others.

Let us remember Paul’s words regarding foundations, inspired by the Holy Spirit: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ’ (1 Corinthians 3:11)

Great quote! And, do you think Paul was talking about following the foundation laid by Christ as expressed in Matt 16:18? How about in comparing the Church to the Bride of Christ in Eph 5:32?

You know, the Bible you have (even in its abridged form…) has to be taken as a whole document and **NOT **a bunch of verses that are cut and pasted together to create a set of doctrines that conform to a religion made by Luther or Calvin or Henry VIII or any of the other 16th Centry malcontents.

God bless

 

[Being_Brave]

When Jesus spoke - He spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha.
This is how it would have gone. “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Chuch” Straight English translation : “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”.

We know this for a fact because Paul called Peter Cephas and Jesus did too in John 1.

The reason for calling Simon, Peter, is because in Greek, objects have gender. To call Simon- a burly fisherman - by the femine name Petra would have been absurd. So when they translated it to Greek they gave him the male equivalent which is Peter.

This is exactly the answer I found when I had this debate with myself, and exactly what I was going to write

 

[GaryTaylor]

We know this for a fact because Paul called Peter Cephas and Jesus did too in John 1.

And there it is. Logic came very early today.

I also agree with above thinking. We have walked to the end of the night with this same debate. The humans who were corrupt and in error in the Church has little to do with the Church teaching. The Church was well defined as Catholic and in its structure in the 1st century by Christs Apostles. And its in writting also. The 7-letters left by Ignatius of Antioch are still at the Vatican.

Man forgets very easy, many don’t think we landed on the moon, we need to all get our act together before its to late. Once man reverts to his barbaric ways and the transformation becomes complete? He will not remember the way back nor will he believe he is barbaric… Islam is not barbaric and in reality christian heresy? Communism is not Barbaric? If the Catholic faith falls to world domination, all christianity falls. The church becomes reduced to underground. We need to wake up and get in communion with Benedict whos a Doctor of the church aside from the Pope/Bishop of Rome. While we can and have time to make a difference. That time dwindles day by day. Mankind knows it is past midnight for human integrity.

God Bless, GT

I am beginning to believe we should come up with a survival plan “now”.

 

[benidict]

This is exactly the answer I found when I had this debate with myself, and exactly what I was going to write

and this my dear friend, is because you ARE listening to the still small voice of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Publisher]

How do the Orthodox view this passage…I’d think their “tradition” concerning this passage would be as “ancient” as anyones…does their view agree with the Catholic church or most Protestants? I figure it being the “other lung” of the Undivided Church they should have some “ancient” insight into this passage as to how it was view in the first 1000 years.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

In direct answer to your question, I do not know.

I think it may be a good idea to compare the Eastern Schism (catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp ) with the Western Schism (catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306iron.asp ). I think it is clear that there were outside forces at work in both schismatic events (mainly Islam) for the Eastern Schism and simply overblow egos and politics as usual causing the Western split.

The Western Schism was unique in the sense that different nation-states actually championed the Pope and antipope - so that the dynamics are not easily confinded to a doctrinal issue.

I hope this both helps and attracts a direct answer to your question. As I see it, according to Christ, everything moves through Peter. Pope Benedict XVI is the Successor of Peter. Any answer will have to address that fact.

God bless

How do the Orthodox view this passage…I’d think their “tradition” concerning this passage would be as “ancient” as anyones…does their view agree with the Catholic church or most Protestants? I figure it being the “other lung” of the Undivided Church they should have some “ancient” insight into this passage as to how it was view in the first 1000 years.

 

[Jesus700]

This is exactly the answer I found when I had this debate with myself, and exactly what I was going to write

I thank everyone who replied to my thread about why Peter surely cannot be the rock - I had actually thought a long time ago about the fact that Jesus wouldn’t necessarily have spoken in Greek - but then I reflected and thought that, whilst Aramaic was His native language - why not speak a word or two in Greek? (Especially when the two words Petros and petra are so similar as to make it into a linguistic kind of joke). The fact that Jesus calls Peter ‘Cephas’ in John1:42, in my opinion, only reinforces the point that Jesus was making when he used Greek instead of Aramaic to compare ‘Petros’ with ‘Petra’ in Matthew 16:18- after all, why not use it in John 1? Never forget - petra means PEBBLE and this is what Jesus, I think, wanted to emphasize in Matthew 16:18, especially since He, just one verse earlier in 16:17 had referred to Peter as something else (Simon Bar-jona). In Matthew 16:18 Jesus, I think, particularly contrasts Petros with Simon Bar-jona in order to bring out the word-play between ‘petra’ and Petros a verse later. It is an extremely important fact that, as well as being ‘Blessed’ Simon Bar-jona (verse 17), nevertheless he is also Peter - just a ‘pebble’ (petra) (verse 18) - and certainly no foundation for His Church.
However, here is a question I would like to put to you: Jesus says (I paraphrase): …‘and Scripture cannot be broken’ in John 10:35 (referring primarily to the OT - but also to the NT since Scripture surely should not necessarily be limited to the Law and the prophets - a point I believe Jesus is making by the fact that he quotes Jer. 10:11 specifically when the Jews are condemning him for saying ‘I am the son of God’) - so surely we should not set up our theories about whether Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic or this, that or the other language (whichever fits your argument)? Please tell me what you think. It’s true that ‘petra’ not ‘kepha’ fits my argument, but then ‘petra’ is what is used in Scripture.
So, I have enumerated two possible theses that seem to me to disqualify the somewhat scornful retorts that I received. Of the two, I am more inclined to go by the ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ (I paraphrase) words of Jesus, and think that while there is the play on words, what Jesus says about Scripture in John 10:35 actually convinces me even more.
For is it not ‘petra’ (not ‘kepha’) that is used in the scripture I quoted - Matthew 16:18? Or does the catholic Bible differ?
Nevertheless - I appreciate greatly the fact that someone called my attention to Jesus’ reply to Peter after Peter has correctly stated that Jesus is the Messaiah, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). In my opinion, the fact that Jesus says ‘Blessed art thou’ immediately before calling him ‘Simon bar-Jona’ persuades me that Jesus was pleased with Peter’s response. Jesus *was *pleased at that point, would you not agree? Whereas at Matthew 16:23 He is obviously not pleased with Peter - and even calls him Satan. The scripture reads: ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’.
In fact, Matthew 16: 23 does seem to me to caracterize many catholics (though I’m sure you will find grounds to disagree, dear brothers!)
Anyway, many thanks again, and I look forward to reading your responses. By the way, although I chose to call myself ‘Protestant’ on this chat thing, I would rather be called ‘someone who loves God’. I mean, I was brought up as a protestant but I have mainly been influenced by Derek Prince and Zac Poonen. I was married in a Pentecostal church.
I am still open to catholicism - so if you would like to convert me then please do try! The best way to do this is by love - though logical analysis of the Bible has an extremely important place (I haven’t yet seen your logic - but I await your replies).

 

[benidict]

I thank everyone who replied to my thread about why Peter surely cannot be the rock - I had actually thought a long time ago about the fact that Jesus wouldn’t necessarily have spoken in Greek - but then I reflected and thought that, whilst Aramaic was His native language - why not speak a word or two in Greek? (Especially when the two words Petros and petra are so similar as to make it into a linguistic kind of joke). The fact that Jesus calls Peter ‘Cephas’ in John1:42, in my opinion, only reinforces the point that Jesus was making when he used Greek instead of Aramaic to compare ‘Petros’ with ‘Petra’ in Matthew 16:18- after all, why not use it in John 1? Never forget - petra means PEBBLE and this is what Jesus, I think, wanted to emphasize in Matthew 16:18, especially since He, just one verse earlier in 16:17 had referred to Peter as something else (Simon Bar-jona). In Matthew 16:18 Jesus, I think, particularly contrasts Petros with Simon Bar-jona in order to bring out the word-play between ‘petra’ and Petros a verse later. It is an extremely important fact that, as well as being ‘Blessed’ Simon Bar-jona (verse 17), nevertheless he is also Peter - just a ‘pebble’ (petra) (verse 18) - and certainly no foundation for His Church.
However, here is a question I would like to put to you: Jesus says (I paraphrase): …‘and Scripture cannot be broken’ in John 10:35 (referring primarily to the OT - but also to the NT since Scripture surely should not necessarily be limited to the Law and the prophets - a point I believe Jesus is making by the fact that he quotes Jer. 10:11 specifically when the Jews are condemning him for saying ‘I am the son of God’) - so surely we should not set up our theories about whether Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic or this, that or the other language (whichever fits your argument)? Please tell me what you think. It’s true that ‘petra’ not ‘kepha’ fits my argument, but then ‘petra’ is what is used in Scripture.
So, I have enumerated two possible theses that seem to me to disqualify the somewhat scornful retorts that I received. Of the two, I am more inclined to go by the ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ (I paraphrase) words of Jesus, and think that while there is the play on words, what Jesus says about Scripture in John 10:35 actually convinces me even more.
For is it not ‘petra’ (not ‘kepha’) that is used in the scripture I quoted - Matthew 16:18? Or does the catholic Bible differ?
Nevertheless - I appreciate greatly the fact that someone called my attention to Jesus’ reply to Peter after Peter has correctly stated that Jesus is the Messaiah, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). In my opinion, the fact that Jesus says ‘Blessed art thou’ immediately before calling him ‘Simon bar-Jona’ persuades me that Jesus was pleased with Peter’s response. Jesus *was *pleased at that point, would you not agree? Whereas at Matthew 16:23 He is obviously not pleased with Peter - and even calls him Satan. The scripture reads: ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’.
In fact, Matthew 16: 23 does seem to me to caracterize many catholics (though I’m sure you will find grounds to disagree, dear brothers!)
Anyway, many thanks again, and I look forward to reading your responses. By the way, although I chose to call myself ‘Protestant’ on this chat thing, I would rather be called ‘someone who loves God’. I mean, I was brought up as a protestant but I have mainly been influenced by Derek Prince and Zac Poonen. I was married in a Pentecostal church.
I am still open to catholicism - so if you would like to convert me then please do try! The best way to do this is by love - though logical analysis of the Bible has an extremely important place (I haven’t yet seen your logic - but I await your replies).

hi my friend. just a couple of things. its not our job to convert you. also you might want to note, its against the rules for any of us to prosylatize. however we can give you info. it is the Holy Spirits Job to convert a person. all the biblical proofs, historical proofs, and plain common sense will do no good to convince anyone of anything. it takes the Holy Spirit. the only way to believe what Catholicism teaches about Peter and the other doctrines we hold dear, is to have God himself englighten a person. the reason for some of the " scornful replies", may have to do with the scornful way you approached this subject. just food for thought. peace

 

[benidict]

so my friend. how does Matther 16:23 carachtarize many Catholics? also, how many Catholics do you personally know? one more thing. do you believe we are the mission field? peace

 

[Jesus700]

so my friend. how does Matther 16:23 caracterize many Catholics? also, how many Catholics do you personally know? one more thing. do you believe we are the mission field? peace

Hi. I was meaning the words ‘thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’. All the quotes of catholic ‘saints’ I read on this forum seem to suggest this to me very strongly. But I am trying to love Catholics (it’s just difficult to reconcile myself with the fact that I must love people who don’t follow the Scripture but who follow tradition -that includes most of my Polish wife’s family.) Jesus commanded us to love our enemy, did He not?

 

[benidict]

Hi. I was meaning the words ‘thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’. All the quotes of catholic ‘saints’ I read on this forum seem to suggest this to me very strongly. But I am trying to love Catholics (it’s just difficult to reconcile myself with the fact that I must love people who don’t follow the Scripture but who follow tradition -that includes most of my Polish wife’s family.) Jesus commanded us to love our enemy, did He not?

wow! ok, now we are getting somewhere. i plead leniency on your behalf with the mods. i love conversations like this. im a Catholic convert from a protestant back ground. my parents are Christian Reformed and i am a former Baptist, who had drifted far from his faith, before my eyes were opened. when i converted, i lost nothing of my Baptist background. my love of the bible, the preaching of the word, a love for finding and understanding the truth. i love the Bible, and i love the Traditions that were passed down orally by the apostles. in them we have one deposit of faith. there really is no contradiction. the Jews had the written word, and the oral tradition passed down from moses. no different with us. i guess you really have had some sour experiences with your wifes family. for that i am sorry. tone down the retoric a little, maybe we can get even further. id really love to help you understand where we are coming from. if you would feel more comfortable. please p.m. me. Peace and prayers for you p.s. your not my enemy. the enemy i face in iraq, is trying to blow me and mine up. or shoot us. you dont qualify to be my enemy! lol! peace

 

[Nicea325]

I thank everyone who replied to my thread about why Peter surely cannot be the rock - I had actually thought a long time ago about the fact that Jesus wouldn’t necessarily have spoken in Greek - but then I reflected and thought that, whilst Aramaic was His native language - why not speak a word or two in Greek? (Especially when the two words Petros and petra are so similar as to make it into a linguistic kind of joke). The fact that Jesus calls Peter ‘Cephas’ in John1:42, in my opinion, only reinforces the point that Jesus was making when he used Greek instead of Aramaic to compare ‘Petros’ with ‘Petra’ in Matthew 16:18- after all, why not use it in John 1? Never forget - petra means PEBBLE and this is what Jesus, I think, wanted to emphasize in Matthew 16:18, especially since He, just one verse earlier in 16:17 had referred to Peter as something else (Simon Bar-jona). In Matthew 16:18 Jesus, I think, particularly contrasts Petros with Simon Bar-jona in order to bring out the word-play between ‘petra’ and Petros a verse later. It is an extremely important fact that, as well as being ‘Blessed’ Simon Bar-jona (verse 17), nevertheless he is also Peter - just a ‘pebble’ (petra) (verse 18) - and certainly no foundation for His Church.
However, here is a question I would like to put to you: Jesus says (I paraphrase): …‘and Scripture cannot be broken’ in John 10:35 (referring primarily to the OT - but also to the NT since Scripture surely should not necessarily be limited to the Law and the prophets - a point I believe Jesus is making by the fact that he quotes Jer. 10:11 specifically when the Jews are condemning him for saying ‘I am the son of God’) - so surely we should not set up our theories about whether Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic or this, that or the other language (whichever fits your argument)? Please tell me what you think. It’s true that ‘petra’ not ‘kepha’ fits my argument, but then ‘petra’ is what is used in Scripture.
So, I have enumerated two possible theses that seem to me to disqualify the somewhat scornful retorts that I received. Of the two, I am more inclined to go by the ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ (I paraphrase) words of Jesus, and think that while there is the play on words, what Jesus says about Scripture in John 10:35 actually convinces me even more.
For is it not ‘petra’ (not ‘kepha’) that is used in the scripture I quoted - Matthew 16:18? Or does the catholic Bible differ?
Nevertheless - I appreciate greatly the fact that someone called my attention to Jesus’ reply to Peter after Peter has correctly stated that Jesus is the Messaiah, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). In my opinion, the fact that Jesus says ‘Blessed art thou’ immediately before calling him ‘Simon bar-Jona’ persuades me that Jesus was pleased with Peter’s response. Jesus *was *pleased at that point, would you not agree? Whereas at Matthew 16:23 He is obviously not pleased with Peter - and even calls him Satan. The scripture reads: ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’.
In fact, Matthew 16: 23 does seem to me to caracterize many catholics (though I’m sure you will find grounds to disagree, dear brothers!)
Anyway, many thanks again, and I look forward to reading your responses. By the way, although I chose to call myself ‘Protestant’ on this chat thing, I would rather be called ‘someone who loves God’. I mean, I was brought up as a protestant but I have mainly been influenced by Derek Prince and Zac Poonen. I was married in a Pentecostal church.
I am still open to catholicism - so if you would like to convert me then please do try! The best way to do this is by love - though logical analysis of the Bible has an extremely important place (I haven’t yet seen your logic - but I await your replies).

With all due respect it does not matter how many times you want to bring this issue up,it has been debunked long before Derek Prince was a twinkle in his father’s eyes. BTW: God is not the only one called Rock in the Bible…

 

[Jesus700]

wow! ok, now we are getting somewhere. i plead leniency on your behalf with the mods. i love conversations like this. im a Catholic convert from a protestant back ground. my parents are Christian Reformed and i am a former Baptist, who had drifted far from his faith, before my eyes were opened. when i converted, i lost nothing of my Baptist background. my love of the bible, the preaching of the word, a love for finding and understanding the truth. i love the Bible, and i love the Traditions that were passed down orally by the apostles. in them we have one deposit of faith. there really is no contradiction. the Jews had the written word, and the oral tradition passed down from moses. no different with us. i guess you really have had some sour experiences with your wifes family. for that i am sorry. tone down the retoric a little, maybe we can get even further. id really love to help you understand where we are coming from. if you would feel more comfortable. please p.m. me. Peace and prayers for you p.s. your not my enemy. the enemy i face in iraq, is trying to blow me and mine up. or shoot us. you dont qualify to be my enemy! lol! peace

I am amazed at the tone of your message - I did think you were more educated than people such as tqualey. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. I will pray for you (by the way).

 

[tqualey]

Well, well, well, Jesus700,

When you get finished boasting of your own education, feel free to go back and actually respond to Post #4 and #5.

When you have actually completed that - then tell me, just why have your joined CAF?

God bless

I am amazed at the tone of your message - I did think you were more educated than people such as tqualey. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. I will pray for you (by the way).

 

[John7]

‘petra’ and means ‘small rock or pebble’.

no, petra is not a diminutive.

what lexicons are you using.

BDAG en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDAG: πέτρᾳ / petra
basic meaning
bedrock or massive rock formations, rock as distinguished from stones

Matt 27:60
καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ
ὃ ἐλατόμησεν ἐν τῇ **πέτρᾳ **
καὶ προσκυλίσας λίθον μέγαν
τῇ θύρᾳ τοῦ μνημείου ἀπῆλθεν.

the petra here is a pebble?

 

[Stephen168]

You cannot surely say that Peter was the rock on which Jesus intended to build His church???

I can say from this passage that Christ said he was going to build a Church. Unless you belong to a Church with a Bishop in succession to the Apostles, Christ didn’t build your church.