MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[pablope]

Remember that in Mark 14:72 Peter had heard the cock crow twice. The announcement from the angel was specific to Peter to end his agony.

But after Peter’s denial, he" And when he thought thereon, he wept."

The angel’s purpose was to announce the resurrection to those going to the tomb. Besides, if the Peter was to be or needed to end his agony, why did the angel not just go directly to Peter. God could have certainly spoken directly to Peter in His own way.

And you are missing the whole point, which was the mention of Peter by name by an angel, which what is significant, as I previously pointed out.

Let us say for a fact that the angel was there to end Peter’s agony, it just makes Peter one of luckiest men on earth to have an angel come for that purpose. It just makes him special all the more. It addition to the acknowledgement of the name change by Heaven, this also affirms that Peter has been forgiven by God, his repentance has been accepted and his role to build Christ’s church is also affirmed and confirmed. You just confirmed Peter’s role and primacy and made it all the more certain and truer. Peter’s repentance, his humility to see and admit his fault, his character just affirmed why Jesus chose him.

So, unwittingly, you just affirmed what the RCC has been saying all along, Peter is the Rock on which Jesus chose to build his church, and the primary role Jesus had ordained for Peter.

 

[benedictus2]

Remember that in Mark 14:72 Peter had heard the cock crow twice. The announcement from the angel was specific to Peter to end his agony.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Is there any corroborating passage that indicates that this is why the Angel mentioned Peter specifically?

 

[benedictus2]

But after Peter’s denial, he" And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Exactly. I don’t know how one can make the correlation that Rocket _ Man is suggesting.

The angel’s purpose was to announce the resurrection to those going to the tomb. Besides, if the Peter was to be or needed to end his agony, why did the angel not just go directly to Peter. God could have certainly spoken directly to Peter in His own way.

And you are missing the whole point, which was the mention of Peter by name by an angel, which what is significant, as I previously pointed out.

Perhaps intentionally missing the point. The singling out of Peter is in keeping with the way Jesus had singled him out.

The discourse regarding the rock and the keys as I kept saying was a continuous discourse and whoever Christ was addressing at the beginning of the discourse is the same person being at the end of it. Christ at that time was addressing only Peter within hearing of his other disciples.

Let us say for a fact that the angel was there to end Peter’s agony, it just makes Peter one of luckiest men on earth to have an angel come for that purpose. It just makes him special all the more. It addition to the acknowledgement of the name change by Heaven, this also affirms that Peter has been forgiven by God, his repentance has been accepted and his role to build Christ’s church is also affirmed and confirmed. You just confirmed Peter’s role and primacy and made it all the more certain and truer. Peter’s repentance, his humility to see and admit his fault, his character just affirmed why Jesus chose him.

Excellent point!

Also, considering that the Father chose Peter SPECIFICALLY to make the make the pronouncement of who Jesus is and what His Mission is.

So, unwittingly, you just affirmed what the RCC has been saying all along, Peter is the Rock on which Jesus chose to build his church, and the primary role Jesus had ordained for Peter.

That happens all the time, people unwittingly confirming our beliefs

 

[benedictus2]

In the same way that Peter did?
NOPE.

Did Jesus say the following to ANY other Apostles?

Luke 22:31-32
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

John 21:15-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

The bottom line friend, is that Peter was singled out for leadership in a way that the other Apostles weren’t. They were given Church authority, whereas Peter was given supreme authority.

Great post! Nailed that one on the head.

 

[benedictus2]

Apparently, Mickey, you have a different version of these Scriptures than I - my Bible does not have any reference to additonal sets of keys being given out to the Other Apostles. To the best of my knowledge Peter was the only one to receive such a Gift.

Apparently Luther got a set as well based on this statement by him: "**I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals.**I have within me the great pope, Self. "

Which means we all must have received one too. I must have lost mine.

 

[benedictus2]

Dear Mickey,

Please understand that the Protestant community is largely a seperating from the Church of Rome : the Latin Rite. I implore your Orthodox understanding for spiritual jurisdiction as to which particular Church should thus proceed to guide these little ones, as it were, and ask you not to “remove a single boundary stone,” (again-) as it were.

While we all welcome your questions and comments, I do not see with what Christian rationale you could justify placing stumbling blocks in this very edifying thread. I don’t believe it would serve any good, except perhaps to make outsiders blush at our Churches lack of unity and agreement.

St Augustine’s comments are most interesting ; however, do you not remember the claim of a previous Saint (Ignatius), who said,
Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. While your quote of Saint Augustine does lend itself to your view, it equally could be used to lend itself to the view that the Bishop of Rome uniquely personifies the whole Church, for at the beginning of your quote the great Saint, Doctor and Bishop said,

And therefore it is said to [Peter], preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19).

“Preferentially,” says this eminent and scholarly Saint.

Now, owing to Peter’s having received the keys and authority first (preferentially, according to St Augustine ; by a proclamation of Christ addressed to him, after Peter had been chosen by God the Father to receive a particular, and definitive, revelation in regards to who Christ is), we could argue that St Peter especially represents the Church in person because of this - just as any Bishop does, according to the logic of St Ignatius, who so intimately unites the seat of the Bishop with that of the whole Church - even Christ. But remember that for St Peter the Triune God became so present : The Holy Spirit working in Peter to confess the Truth revealed to him by the select decision of God the Father, and with the Son thereafter confirming this : God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all present in this scene. For the Son hears the words of His Father in Peter, and, naturally, follows it by rendering His divine blessing.

Pax,
Tim

Brilliant rebuttal

 

[benedictus2]

By the way, have you seen AnIrishLutheran anywhere around? I have looked… and he seems to have vanished in a stream of smoke…

Let me give you the reason why the OP has decided there is no need to return.

The threads that have been merged boil down to this: Was Peter the Rock?

The second title sounded fancy but the discussion is not really “beyond the talking points” because it was still the same talking point as before : “Was Peter the Rock?” It was all smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue.

We have proved conclusively that Peter is the Rock and AnIristhLutheran has finally seen the light and agreed as per his last reply to me which I now quote here :

Yes, yes, yes, Cephas is a rock, and Petros is a rock.

**So therefore stone/rock issue is no more, the thread has been answered so it was time for him to move on.

Now he will have to deal with implications of that realization.
**

 

[benedictus2]

Holy Orthodoxy would say that it is you who have separated.

And Scripture and History will say you got that wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

The more I think about this scripture the more I realize that it proves that the dispute over Petro and Petra to be nonsense.

The Scripture says that Jesus used the Aramaic and that it should be interpreted as the same as Peter.

I think it has been firmly established that Cephas (rock) = Peter and what Jesus said was that you are Cephas and unpon this cephas I will build my Church.

He conceded that Jesus did speak Aramaic but his contention was how do we know that He did speak Aramaic on THIS occassion.

As I pointed out to him earlier, we know because Jesus addressed him as Simon barjonah, “bar” being Aramaic for son, and jonah meaning Dove.

Which I thought interesting because if Simon’s father is not named Jonah (which I don’t think we can ascertain from Scripture) it would seem that Jesus was referring to Peter as Simon son of the Dove. We remember of course Jesus Baptism.

And when you think that Jesus said that the Father revealed this to Peter, then the agent of revelation would have been the Holy Spirit, the Dove.

But these are just my musings.

 

[benedictus2]

Christ does not favor one Apostle over another.

As Adrift very nicely pointed out, choosing Peter is not favouring him. This is simply God’s choice.

After all, why did Christ say that God the Father reveal this to Peter? I mean, God the Father could have easily made a simultaneous revelation to all the apostles couldn’t He? So why make this revelatino to Peter ALONE? Perhaps God the Father was favouring Peter and Christ was confirming this choice?

The Holy Orthodox Church definitely sees this as St Peter’s confession of faith.

As I explained to AIL using an analysis of the syntax of the discourse, it is quite impossible.

The holy Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself the Cornerstone–a holy temple in the Lord, Eph.2: 19-22; 1.Pet.2: 6.
That without a doubt. He did after all choose 12. But there was one particular Apostle that He singled out.

And considering what He planned for the Church, that is only the sensible way because there has a to be a final adjudicator.

 

[Ben_F]

I´ll make a deal with you Jesus 700. I´ll pray for you, if you pray for me. God Bless:thumbsup:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

It sounds like the Heavenly Locksmith had been working overtime to get all of those keys made…

God bless

Apparently Luther got a set as well based on this statement by him: "**I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals.**I have within me the great pope, Self. "

Which means we all must have received one too. I must have lost mine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

I really am quite surprised! The way he had dug in his heels … well … it it nothing short of a miracle that AIL made such a ‘confession’ of his own!

While there is a certain proximity between confession and conversion … one still has to make the necessary steps. Who knows, while we may not hear again from AIL, he could be inching over to the Truth of Christ’s Church… and, that would be the Catholic Church!

Ah, but, not only him - but, also those who just read the posts (I hate saying ‘lurkers’…) With all of his smoke, he may have confused some - hopefully they have seen his post. But, if not, his absence is surely noted and speaks volumes.

God bless

Let me give you the reason why the OP has decided there is no need to return.

The threads that have been merged boil down to this: Was Peter the Rock?

The second title sounded fancy but the discussion is not really “beyond the talking points” because it was still the same talking point as before : “Was Peter the Rock?” It was all smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue.

We have proved conclusively that Peter is the Rock and AnIristhLutheran has finally seen the light and agreed as per his last reply to me which I now quote here :

**So therefore stone/rock issue is no more, the thread has been answered so it was time for him to move on.

Now he will have to deal with implications of that realization.
**

 

[Rocket_Man]

But after Peter’s denial, he" And when he thought thereon, he wept."

The angel’s purpose was to announce the resurrection to those going to the tomb. Besides, if the Peter was to be or needed to end his agony, why did the angel not just go directly to Peter. God could have certainly spoken directly to Peter in His own way.

pablope, it was neither one without the other but both. Do you think Peter’s tears had dried? The source of all joy radiates from the risen Christ and the empty tomb is the birthing place of the new life. The angel’s announcement was particular to Peter’s agony.

From Psalm 30:

For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

and…

And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved.

and…

Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness;

 

[adrift]

I understand that you must be obedient to the interpretations of your magisterium–I cannot fault you for that.

I answered a question that was not really in line with the OP’s subject. My apologies.
I must leave cyberspace for an extended period now.

Blessed Nativity

Christ is Born!
Glorify Him!

Obedience is a choice. I am obedient to the Truth. It is not a mindless obedience. Of course, the comment was made only to be dismissive of my position.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Let us say for a fact that the angel was there to end Peter’s agony, it just makes Peter one of luckiest men on earth to have an angel come for that purpose. It just makes him special all the more. It addition to the acknowledgement of the name change by Heaven, this also affirms that Peter has been forgiven by God, his repentance has been accepted and his role to build Christ’s church is also affirmed and confirmed. You just confirmed Peter’s role and primacy and made it all the more certain and truer. Peter’s repentance, his humility to see and admit his fault, his character just affirmed why Jesus chose him.

Yes, Peter was first among many prodigals and his revelation as Jesus being the Christ, the sin of denial, and later repentance is the heart of the church. If the sword swings from Peter’s primacy, than let it swing with the same blood that drips from the King.

 

[adrift]

Yes, Peter was first among many prodigals and his revelation as Jesus being the Christ, the sin of denial, and later repentance is the heart of the church. If the sword swings from Peter’s primacy, than let it swing with the same blood that drips from the King.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, RocketMan,

I guess I do not understand the metaphor of the sword here. Would you kindly explain it?

Thanks

God bless

Yes, Peter was first among many prodigals and his revelation as Jesus being the Christ, the sin of denial, and later repentance is the heart of the church. If the sword swings from Peter’s primacy, than let it swing with the same blood that drips from the King.

 

[benedictus2]

pablope, it was neither one without the other but both. Do you think Peter’s tears had dried? The source of all joy radiates from the risen Christ and the empty tomb is the birthing place of the new life. The angel’s announcement was particular to Peter’s agony.

From Psalm 30:

For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

and…

And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved.

and…

Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness;

BUT, THAT is neither here nor there.

You are making a conjecture that the reason the Angel gave specific mention of Peter was because of his sadness.

But there is no passage in the the gospels that support this.

As I asked you before, is there any proof that this is the reason Peter was given special mentioned?

And as pablope pointed out, that the angel made special mention of Peter naming him specifically means that the heavens have accepted this name. So therefore it is a name change not a nickname as AIL contended.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, Peter was first among many prodigals and his revelation as Jesus being the Christ,

Which God the Father SPECIFICALLY REVEALED TO HIM, not to the other disciples.

the sin of denial, and later repentance is the heart of the church.

How do you come to that conclusion? Is there anything you can cite that his sin and denial of denial and later repentance is the heart of the Church?

If the sword swings from Peter’s primacy, than let it swing with the same blood that drips from the King.

Huh! What in the world does that mean? And what has that got to do with Peter’s primacy?