Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?

[dronald]

Actually, it might also have been translated simply as, “Thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build My church.”, which is essentially what He was saying. He called Simon, Peter, because he was solid. The others, and Peter, might have assumed that it was because of his physical characteristics. But, it was more likely because Jesus already knew of his strong faith in God, when He first chose him as a disciple.

Does all this mean that Peter was the first “Rocky”?

So assuming Peter is the rock and Jesus said, “Thou art rock” wouldn’t Jesus have said, “Thou art rock and upon thou rock.” Which would be translated as, “Thou art Peter and upon thou Peter I will build my Church.”

Why did Jesus say, “upon this Peter” instead of, “upon thou, Peter”?

 

[rcwitness]

So assuming Peter is the rock and Jesus said, “Thou art rock” wouldn’t Jesus have said, “Thou art rock and upon thou rock.” Which would be translated as, “Thou art Peter and upon thou Peter I will build my Church.”

Why did Jesus say, “upon this Peter” instead of, “upon thou, Peter”?

I see what you are troubled over.

But if He is addressing Simon’s statement of faith alone (no play of words intended), then why would He need to say, “You are Peter” ???

I think the answer lies in the recognition of an office being established and Peter being the holder of that office. So The man Simon is sworn into the office by Christ, which is uniting him to the office just as two people are married to each other through the Sacrament.

So Jesus was saying, “You are prime minister, and on this prime ministry I will build my Church.” Or, “You are Pope, and on this Papal Ministry I will build my Church.”

This is in accordance with the fact that Peter is recognized as first, as FatherKnowsBest referenced in Matt. 10:2

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is a very anti-Catholic (former cradle Catholic, whose family left the RC church when he was a child and converted to Pentecostalism) pastor that I know through my volunteer work at a program that takes place at his church (even though I do not go to that church). He once said that Jesus did NOT mean for Peter to run the Church. That it was not built on Peter at all and therefore the Catholic Church is wrong wrong wrong.

How could he, a sola scriptura, born again Protestant, believe this, when we read in the Bible:

Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”

He needs to go to the back of the line.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I see what you are troubled over.

But if He is addressing Simon’s statement of faith alone (no play of words intended), then why would He need to say, “You are Peter” ???

I think the answer lies in the recognition of an office being established and Peter being the holder of that office. So The man Simon is sworn into the office by Christ, which is uniting him to the office just as two people are married to each other through the Sacrament.

So Jesus was saying, “You are prime minister, and on this prime ministry I will build my Church.” Or, “You are Pope, and on this Papal Ministry I will build my Church.”

This is in accordance with the fact that Peter is recognized as first, as FatherKnowsBest referenced in Matt. 10:2

Indeed!

Plus, Scriptures show that whenever God changes someone name’s they are to be given something of significance.

 

[Telstar]

Exactly. In fact, this is only a difficulty in some languages. In French, for instance, the Bible says something along the lines of (of course in French):
“You are Pierre, and on this pierre I will build My church.”

More to the point, in the Aramaic translation (which many deny is a translation at all; they claim that the Aramaic is the original and they have good reason for saying that in the case of Matthew’s Gospel), the Pe*****ta says:
“You are Keepa, and on this keepa I will build My church.”
(Of course the words are scrambled and mostly backward since it is Aramaic)

Thanks, FKB. Good points. (I’m guessing the link you posted got messed up because of the language filter. lol)

I find it rather interesting that Cephas is translated/pronounced “Keepa”. That seems to agree with the way the Church sees Peter. He was the “keeper” of the faith. Since I’m up here in New England, it’s pronounced “keepa”. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Yeah, I’d slightly disagree with this.
He was only “solid” because Christ promised, and prayed for, him to be.
Lu 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [ed: this “you” is plural, meaning all the Apostles], that he might sift you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you [ed: this “you” is singular, meaning St. Peter], that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

More literally, it says “the faith of you may not fail”.

I really don’t think Peter’s faith completely failed, though it was clearly shaken. Jesus prayed that it wouldn’t fail. It was more his nerve that failed him. He was afraid that he would be arrested, too. But, he still stayed nearby to see what went on, thus making him an even stronger witness in the end. I think God allowed that to happen for good reason, considering Peter was destined to lead the Church after Jesus died. I believe everything that happened had a significant purpose, which certainly proves that God really does move in mysterious ways. After Peter realized what had happened, his faith in Jesus was even stronger than before, making him an even more solid ‘rock’.

I couldn’t resist.

It’s interesting that the Gospels themselves tell us that St. Peter was the PRIMARY Apostle:

Mt 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

When you think about this, it’s pretty unambiguously stated here.

Exactly. In several places where the Apostles are listed, Peter always seems to be named first. There’s no doubt in my mind, that has to be significant.

 

[Telstar]

Hi Telstar;I would strongly disagree with the objections made in regards to the KJV,it could be said of any version there was hidden reason and criticism in regards to why such a verse is put in a certain way.Indeed it was your own Bernard of Clairvaux ( greatly revered translator and expositor- to the pontif-)who was criticised by Augustine of Hippo,for not accurately rendering word for word in translation,but rather the sense of the passage ought not to have been given the priority over the accuracy of the word in the translation process.
The Textus receptus dates further back than Henry the eighth incidentally ;and in its original format ,is still available for comparison today also.

Hi, Bernard.

“St. Bernard of Clairvaux:
Born in 1090, at Fontaines, near Dijon, France; died at Clairvaux, 21 August, 1153.”

“:St. Augustine of Hippo
Augustine was born at Tagaste on 13 November, 354.”

I don’t think St. Augustine of Hippo ever criticized St. Bernard of Clairvaux about anything, so I’m not sure what or who you’re referring to. Could you, please, post something (maybe a link) I can read it from?

The KJV does ,I would also argue ,greatly esteem the apostle Peter ,who was greatly loved by Jesus ,but this is in the context of 12 apostles ,all chosen by one Christ.

I’m not saying the KJV was disrespectful of Peter, but that the translators had good reason to change the wording in some passages in order to downplay Peter’s significance to foster their reason for breaking away from the Pope and the Catholic Church. If their translations weren’t as clear-cut, and they avoided giving him any prominence in their preaching, Peter could easily be seen as just another Apostle, as your and others’ examples show.

The Catholic translation in the DR (the Catholic standard for centuries) was not based solely on the purely literal (mechanical) translation of the words, but also by the understanding of the context in which it had always been used in the past. When there was a conflict, the context that had been handed down from the Apostles influenced the words chosen to be used in the translation. Through the help of the Holy Ghost, the truth remained intact, which was one of the main reasons God sent Him to the Apostles (and Church) in the first place, so the truth would never be lost.

With all due respect to Peter( for they were all scattered,and fled "All ye shall be offended"Matt26:31) Jesus foreknowledge of Peter also ,as you will know,included a threefold denial that he even new Jesus .
Was then also your ‘rock’?

See my response to FKB, above. Yes, he was.

Finally if you look closely at John chapter 1 as a whole and verse 42 in particular ,you will notice that the day before Andrew( a disciple of the baptist) shows and brings Peter to "Christ’,Andrew is standing with John the Baptist ,who is apparently a free man.
But in Mark chapter one,verse 14 “Now after that John was put in prison,Jesus came into Galilee”
Why is this significant? Because immediately after Peter meets Jesus in John 1:42,we see Jesus move on :

“the day following Jesus would go into Galilee,and findeth Philip,and saith unto him Follow me”(verse 43)

But this is only the day after Andrew,Peter’s brother,stood along side a free John the Baptist ;
According to Marks gospel Jesus doesn’t command Peter and the other ‘fishers’ to leave their nets and follow him until after John has been put in prison.

There are several places where the Gospel writers may have a slightly different recollection of the events, like the order in which they occurred, but for the most part, they’re not detrimental to the principal Gospel message. We have to remember that many of these things were only written down years after the events, and the writers were human beings. Those small differences are not a real problem because they don’t blatantly contradict what Jesus taught. If they did, then, there would be a problem.

 

[dronald]

I see what you are troubled over.

But if He is addressing Simon’s statement of faith alone (no play of words intended), then why would He need to say, “You are Peter” ???

I think the answer lies in the recognition of an office being established and Peter being the holder of that office. So The man Simon is sworn into the office by Christ, which is uniting him to the office just as two people are married to each other through the Sacrament.

So Jesus was saying, “You are prime minister, and on this prime ministry I will build my Church.” Or, “You are Pope, and on this Papal Ministry I will build my Church.”

This is in accordance with the fact that Peter is recognized as first, as FatherKnowsBest referenced in Matt. 10:2

The problem with your examples is that if we want to compare it to what Jesus says it would say, “You are Prime Minister, and upon this Prime Minister.” Which doesn’t make sense to me.

If Jesus said “You are rock and upon this rock” the use of “this” is very confusing. It clearly must be a play on words, “You are rock and upon this rock.” If it was about Peter Jesus would have said “You are Peter and upon thou Peter.”

One can’t ignore Peter’s statement of Faith that comes exactly prior to Jesus’s statement. “You are the Christ the Son of the living God.” Jesus’s statement was not a stand alone statement, but rather a response to his declaration.

Likewise, Peter is “a rock” but he’s certainly not the only living stone.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Likewise, Peter is “a rock” but he’s certainly not the only living stone.

Christ [did not] say: You are Peter and you are one of the rocks in which I will build my Church.

Christ said: 18 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. (Emphasis mine).

 

[Telstar]

So assuming Peter is the rock and Jesus said, “Thou art rock” wouldn’t Jesus have said, “Thou art rock and upon thou rock.” Which would be translated as, “Thou art Peter and upon thou Peter I will build my Church.”

Why did Jesus say, “upon this Peter” instead of, “upon thou, Peter”?

Because, Jesus was making a play on words with the nickname He gave to Simon. It was also a hint at His reason for calling him Peter in the first place. Jesus was very good at using certain words in ways to make the Apostles, and the people, think in a different way. At the time He said this, they probably didn’t realize the significance of it. Nor did they make the connection to Peter’s solid faith, which caused God to choose him to reveal Who Jesus really was. Peter was bold enough in his faith in Jesus to come right out and say it.

A solid rock is the most important thing to a builder. Jesus was planning on building His Church to last forever. So, what’s better to use for the foundation than a solid rock that won’t crumble under the massive edifice that He planned on building? He was the cornerstone, but the rest of the foundation started with Peter, then the rest of the Apostles.

 

[rcwitness]

The problem with your examples is that if we want to compare it to what Jesus says it would say, "You are Prime Minister, and upon this Prime Minister." Which doesn’t make sense to me.

I suggested the boled to say ‘ministry’

If Jesus said “You are rock and upon this rock” the use of “this” is very confusing. It clearly must be a play on words, “You are rock and upon this rock.” If it was about Peter Jesus would have said “You are Peter and upon thou Peter.”

My question to you, is why does Jesus designate To Simon the very same name He associates with the foundation of His Church??
Don’t you need to justify this?

One can’t ignore Peter’s statement of Faith that comes exactly prior to Jesus’s statement. “You are the Christ the Son of the living God.” Jesus’s statement was not a stand alone statement, but rather a response to his declaration.

Likewise, Peter is “a rock” but he’s certainly not the only living stone.

I agree, Peter’s statement and Jesus’ reply both are relavent to its interpretation.

Peter is not the only rock. We can agree with this. Peter himself is not the Rock of our faith. This is Jesus. What Catholicism Teaches, is that Jesus, the Rock of our faith, took Simon and established him as the Rock of our Church. This Church has many rocks which make the whole house. Each created in the image of the Rock who is Jesus.

 

[Telstar]

If Jesus said “You are rock and upon this rock” the use of “this” is very confusing.

If Jesus was alone with Peter, it would definitely be confusing. But, all of the Apostles were together, so He could have looked at Peter and said,“Thou art Peter”, then turned to the others and said, “and upon ***this rock ***I will build my Church…” They were not alone, so Jesus was pointing out Peter as being ‘the rock’, while confirming his position of favor to the rest of them, because of his bold expression of faith.

 

[dronald]

I suggested the boled to say ‘ministry’

My question to you, is why does Jesus designate To Simon the very same name He associates with the foundation of His Church??
Don’t you need to justify this?

I agree, Peter’s statement and Jesus’ reply both are relavent to its interpretation.

Peter is not the only rock. We can agree with this. Peter himself is not the Rock of our faith. This is Jesus. What Catholicism Teaches, is that Jesus, the Rock of our faith, took Simon and established him as the Rock of our Church. This Church has many rocks which make the whole house. Each created in the image of the Rock who is Jesus.

I basically agree with everything stated here.

If Jesus was alone with Peter, it would definitely be confusing. But, all of the Apostles were together, so He could have looked at Peter and said,“Thou art Peter”, then turned to the others and said, “and upon ***this rock ***I will build my Church…” They were not alone, so Jesus was pointing out Peter as being ‘the rock’, while confirming his position of favor to the rest of them, because of his bold expression of faith.

Or it is likely that when Jesus said “This rock” He was referring to Himself. But it seems like the discussion was directed towards Peter, however it could be likely that the other Apostles were meant to hear.

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock

 

[Darryl_B]

If Jesus said the same word twice for Peter in Aramaic, would it be better translated “Thou art Peter and upon thou Peter I shall build my Church”?

Why does Jesus say, “this rock” and not “on you” or something?

Instead you should be asking the question, why would Jesus call and make Peter the subject, and then suddenly change the subject. It would be an unfinished thought, a response that changes direction, a twist in direction that would not even provide Peter the position of stepping stone, there would be no link between Peter and the crux of the direction Jesus was heading, and the point he was making.

You cannot do that. Matthew would not even record that statement if the statement meant nothing really to the progression of thought that Jesus was leading his followers and most of all Peter.

 

[dronald]

Instead you should be asking the question, why would Jesus call and make Peter the subject, and then suddenly change the subject. It would be an unfinished thought, a response that changes direction, a twist in direction that would not even provide Peter the position of stepping stone, there would be no link between Peter and the crux of the direction Jesus was heading, and the point he was making.

You cannot do that. Matthew would not even record that statement if the statement meant nothing really to the progression of thought that Jesus was leading his followers and most of all Peter.

I don’t think that’s what I should be asking. In fact, what I asked is exactly what I wanted to know the answer to.

Peter is a rock, the statement of faith is the rock Jesus builds the Church on. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

[rcwitness]

Peter is a rock, the statement of faith is the rock Jesus builds the Church on. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

As usual, what I love about the Catholic faith is the multi layer meanings which work together. I agree the statement of faith was indeed the principle foundation of the gospel. The gospel message is the Word of God delivered in Christ. This message was to be continued after Jesus accomplished all that was willed by the Father. This is why Jesus appointed an actual office which would be held by an actual person in order to sustain His Gospel.

You, and all who believe in the infaillible statement St Peter made at this eccumenical council are in Communion with Jesus.

Sometimes I feel that the Hidden Manna is like the infallibility of Church Teaching. The Holy Spirit is able to reveal the wisdom of Christ to those who are not scandalized in Him, and are not proud. Those who fix their eyes on Christ have a profound sense of His governance in His mystical Body on earth. The government is on His shoulders.

I believe in His authority through the Pope, Apostolic Bishops, and priests. This is not a mere blind faith, but searching His leaders for His Hidden Treasures.

 

[rcwitness]

It is limiting full Communion with the deposit of faith to only see Peter’s statement as the Rock which Jesus built His Church on. This statement was revealed to a person, not by his own private interpretation, but revealed from the Father, who Jesus renamed fittingly as the Person who serves a prime function in Confirming the whole Church regarding the Faith.

When St Luke tells us, “In those days, Peter stood up among the disciples…”

Is this a coincidence that the person who delivered the foundation rock of the gospel message, also became the chief and foremost agent among the believers within the Church?

Or is it also coincidence that Peter went in and out among all the churches as though he were a leader among leaders keeping watch over the whole flock? And was he not commissioned specifically to do so by Jesus during the forty days?

This is all too convincing to me to be exactly what the Catholic faith has proclaimed from the beginning. That within the Body of Christ on earth, Jesus established a principle office continuing His ministry of One faith, one mind, one Church.

 

[Telstar]

Or it is likely that when Jesus said “This rock” He was referring to Himself. But it seems like the discussion was directed towards Peter, however it could be likely that the other Apostles were meant to hear.

17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock

Grammatically speaking, Jesus talking to Simon (Peter) is the subject of that whole sentence. He starts out with, “And I say to thee:” followed by a colon. This clearly indicates all that follows is directly related to “thee” (Peter), because He follows it with, “That thou art Peter;” followed by a semicolon, which also relates what follows to the opening phrase (to thee),** “and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”** Every part of that sentence relates directly to Peter. Jesus didn’t change the subject to Himself in the middle of the sentence. That wouldn’t make any grammatical sense. He then continues along that same line of thought (Peter and the Church) when he references the keys. " [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."** The whole paragraph is a conversation between the two of them while they were surrounded by the rest of the Apostles.

 

[zz912]

I don’t think that’s what I should be asking. In fact, what I asked is exactly what I wanted to know the answer to.

Peter is a rock, the statement of faith is the rock Jesus builds the Church on. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Could you give another example of Jesus switching the subject He is speaking about in mid-sentence?

 

[MartinJordan]

This is all too convincing to me to be exactly what the Catholic faith has proclaimed from the beginning. That within the Body of Christ on earth, Jesus established a principle office continuing His ministry of One faith, one mind, one Church.

The 1st and 2nd Letters of Peter showed how far Peter had come in loving His Lord enabling Peter to teach others.

MJ

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t think that’s what I should be asking. In fact, what I asked is exactly what I wanted to know the answer to.

Peter is a rock, the statement of faith is the rock Jesus builds the Church on. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Then why is a “statement” a rock? Why did Jesus Christ not say “And on your statement I will build my Church”? “This” references subject, subject is “Simon”. You will never get an answer to your question unless you can first answer the question I asked you to find an answer to. All you will possess, my friend, is satisfaction of separation.

One thing I have found in understanding Scripture is that anyone who wants to deny that which is obviously stated, can, by interpretation and switching, do so. I did it for many years. Wrestling against. But is that what God intended?