D
dronald
Guest
So it is both or just Peter? Because I always get mixed answers on this.
Pentecostal pastor claims Jesus did NOT build his Church on Peter?
- Status
D
dronald
Guest
Don’t have one anywhere. In fact, Jesus would always speak in context of the questions/thoughts people had.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
This point is just Peter, a reciprocation. Jesus is extending a hand of friendship to Peter at this point through His words, as Peter recognized Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ in turn recognized Simon Peter. You are this value says Peter. you are this value says Jesus Christ in return.
D
dronald
Guest
“You are the Christ the Son of the living God” had to do with “Upon this rock I will build my Church”? Or was Jesus making a new, separate point?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
You failed to quote that correctly, my friend, you failed to insert the … that you intentionally ignored. Again, Peter recognizes Jesus and in turn Jesus recognizes Peter. Once you insert the context, the … that you ignore to make your interpretation make sense, you will realize that IF the only way one can believe what you say is to eliminate words from Scripture, then you have probably defined Scripture rather than Scripture defining you.
D
dronald
Guest
I didn’t fail at anything; I asked a question and you’re free to say “No”.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I agree with Darryl in as much as the direct reply from Jesus is establishing an office on Peter. There is of course, the element of Peter’s reply which is also a foundation of the Faith. That is only logical for Jesus to recognize from the Father.
To me, it is so important to see this as a council. Jesus has them all together to raise the most important question of the Gospel!
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”** 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[c] 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! 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,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 **I will give you **the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever **you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever **you **loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Jesus recognizes Simon to be blessed from the Father. The Father revealed to Simon the answer. Jesus in return blesses Simon, because He follows the Will of His Father, by placing on him the Keys of an office on which He will build His Church. He does not give the Keys to whoever says Jesus is the Christ. But to Peter whom the Father revealed at that moment to give the infallible declaration in the council which was placed with a question concerning Faith!
Yes!!! The Gospel Ministry of the Catholic Faith is Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God!
Jesus also manages His Gospel through His Church. In this council, He charges them not to declare this revalation. He was still carrying out the works of the Christ. In the days after Christ’s ascenssion, Peter stood up as manager of the Church. In every generation Jesus manages His Whole Church through the holder of the Keys! Even St.Paul the Apostle recognized Peter as holder of the keys, when He went to stay with him and lay out the gospel message he was preaching, in order to be Confirmed.**
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Yes it was no doubt not Augustine of hippo,but perhaps a more contemporary Augustine that the Wikipedia quote I read was referring to ,apologies .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?
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.
Whereas I would agree that there are somewhat varying accounts and ordering in the four differing gospel records,I would attribute this to ,not human error,because for example Peter says in 1Peter 1:25"But THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURETH FOR EVER.And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you", but rather these differ one from the other because of the particular emphasis that each writer in turn is highlighting and focusing upon.
But John appears to be deliberately emphasising from that day and time where John the Baptist is seen standing at liberty and intentionally brings us to the wedding at Cana on the third day? Do you believe there is a reason for this or is this also somewhat haphazard ?
I would suggest that this was to show deliberately a spiritual significance and that the events at this wedding are to be viewed in light of the resurrection on the third day.
But for this be accurately portrayed ,as Christ lay in the tomb 3 literal days ,and Jona in the belly of the whale the exact same period, then three days exactly,must have preceded this wedding also.
Then the baptist was a free man and Jesus says to Philip first of all :‘follow me’
As Mark ( chapter 1)clearly places emphasis on the fact that Jesus seems not to enter Galilee and say the same thing to Peter and the others until after that John is seen to be imprisoned. Is Mark confused about the timing here or perhaps about John the baptist’s true whereabouts?
It is also interesting to note that although Peter was not first to be called to follow ,he is in Mark’ account once again ,and that at the commencement ,seen almost simultaneously commanded to leave the nets and ’ follow’ Jesus ,together with those in the other boat: namely,‘the sons of thunder’.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Psalm 89:26&28 “He shall cry unto me,Thou art my Father,my God,and the rock of my salvation.”
“My mercy will I keep for him for evermore,and my covenant shall stand fast with him”
Such an enduring substance as ‘rock’ has, we all would accept ,long before being used in connection with Simon Peter ,been utilised as a symbolic representation of stability in relating to us,a spiritual reality.In the above example its use perhaps places the stress on God’s unchanging Fatherly promises and his immovable everlasting ‘covenant’.
Do we not see in the above that from the psalmist’s point of view,the source of this rock is ‘my God’ and ‘my salvation’ ?and in response the covenant keeping God attributes the truth of this metaphor,to the one who in truth has believed on the rock for his salvation,and expressed the same? “My mercy will I keep for him for evermore,and my covenant shall stand fast with him”
Does this not sound familiar?
It is my argument that this has ever been and ever will be the same ‘rock’ seen and used symbolically in scripture :“the rock of my salvation”
As seen in Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth The Lord Jesus,and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved”
As Peter himself was not therefore symbolic then this confession he had just uttered is pointing to in like manner the source of that ‘rock’ of which he is by association assimilated into the same likeness and indeed is likened to the substance ‘Petros’ a rock.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
T
Telstar
Guest
That’s not surprising coming from Wikipedia. Any schmuck can say or change anything they want, and lots of people take it to be as true as the Gospels, when it’s just a bunch of nonsense. Not a problem.
The Gospels will certainly endure forever, but that doesn’t change the fact that each one was written by different man. They were not necessarily written in chronological order, but often times similar stories were told together, even though they might not have happened at the same time.
As I said, the writers were mortal men that had different ways they recorded the events. Some remembered details that others omitted, and some recorded them out of order. The purpose for having more than one record was to show that on most of the important points, they all agreed, even though they had different ways of saying it.
I have no idea what you mean about the wedding at Cana having something to do with the three days Jesus spent in the tomb, etc… So, I certainly don’t understand how that would be related to Jesus calling the Apostles, either. Sorry, I’m just totally confused what you mean by any of this.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
PSALM 92:13&15
“Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God.”
“To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock,and there is no unrighteousness in him”
Hi rcwitness ,
I agree ,of course we cannot separate Peter from his confession ,or for that matter,that faith which his confession expresses.
This declaration by Peter ,I would also say,which pours out of his own faith ,however,is not to be disconnected from the faith and that expression of faith,already recorded in scripture.
Peter for example would have known the words pouring out from the psalmist’s own faith,as seen in Psalm 92.
My question therefore is ,if that expression of faith ,and the faith itself,even the source of it:
‘my rock’ ,has been already established a long time ,prior to Peter and his own confession,how then can either Peter or his confession be that foundation on which Jesus says ’ I will build my church’?
The foundation 'my rock 'that is, has already ,I believe,very much been in existence,prior to the naming of Simon,as seen in John 1:42 or Matthew 16:18.
“He shall cry unto me,Thou art my father,my God,and the rock of my salvation”
PSALM 89:26.
Do we not also see this in Peter’s own epistles?
1Peter 2: 5 “Ye also,as lively stones,are built up a spiritual house”
Does Peter say that this 'spiritual house ’ is built upon either himself or his confession of faith?
No I don’t believe he does,but rather we see hi continue to witness to that foundation already established ,(verse 6) that is by quoting Isaiah :
"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture,Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone,elect,precious:and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded "
We see that even ‘the stone’ which is said to be ’ the head of the corner’((verse7)
Christ ,‘the living stone’( verse 4) is also by Peter, shown here to be placed on this same foundation ,corner stone of ‘this spiritual house’.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The fact that many already believed and were Taught that the Christ would come to bring salvation is true. But when the Christ did come, many did not believe who He was. What good does it profit to believe there is a Christ, but reject the One who is the Christ? So Jesus asked them who the people said He was. No one said He was the Christ. So He asked who they, His own followers say He is. Peter spoke the truth. He confessed Jesus of Nazareth the Christ, Son of God. He did not say, “The Christ will come.” But, (in more detail) “You are the Christ, worthy of God, able to give us salvation.”
We certainly do not believe Peter or his successors are the Rock of our Faith, but what Jesus said,“The rock which I shall build my Church on.” Peter was the one Apostle most closely attended to by Christ. Peter was held up by Jesus with a certain devotion, which was apparent as being for the sake of leadership and shepherding His Church in His physical absence. It is still Jesus who is the One Shepherd! But He Shepherds us through His annointed. But this is not to cast asside faith or the Lordship of the Holy Spirit, because they are both required for us to Know all things, and to make our hearts pure before the Father.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Hi rcwitness ,
It is true the OT saints looked to a coming saviour ,but that faith they evidenced through the words of their mouths ,(and their actions) showed a personal knowledge of God and a present possession of that ‘righteousness’ gotten from the LORD,even though his provision and sacrifice yet lay ahead.
‘Abraham believed God,and it was counted unto him for righteousness’(Rom4:3)
This Paul describes through the experience and words of David a spiritual Israelite indeed,who was not alone ,but along with many :utterance from that faith within ‘the heart’,and the witnessing with the mouth ,to an effectual and certain sacrifice, available even then.
“Saying,Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,and whose sins are covered”(Rom4:7)
As to Israel in the flesh ,in the time of their visitation,who didn’t believe the words of their saviour ,Jesus marks out the difference between such as Peter,and those who confessed him not.
And so pronounces the same 'blessed ’ state as was expressed by David,upon the same,saying:
‘Blessed art thou,Simon Bar-jo-an:for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,but my Father which is in heaven’
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Would you agree that as Jesus points to the source of ,or as I would say ‘the rock’ of Peter’s confession:'my Father which is in heaven;then fully aware was the saviour of who it was that would believe and all those others who would not?
Then Peter along with all the others who would believe was known to Jesus; as well as those would not believe,and that beforehand.
“But there are some of you that believe not.For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed him not,and who should betray him”(John 6:64)
Then this question of Jesus ,‘but whom say ye that I am’ was not in way of a personal search of His true followers, but I would suggest ,a personal declaration by Jesus ,as to how and where each ‘living stone’ was to be quarried,and points himself to ‘the rock’ of salvation.
P
Potter
Guest
I grew up Pentecostal, in a particular sect that denies the trinity. (They call themselves “Oneness”, and even “Apostolic”.) According to one preacher from my youth, Jesus was establishing the church on the truth Peter knew, namely that Jesus was the Messiah.
Z
zz912
Guest
That’s not how the first Christians understood that passage. And it’s not how Christians understood that passage for 1500 years after it was said.
Where did your pastor claim authority from to overturn this important piece of the Christian faith?
P
Potter
Guest
He said God revealed it to him, of course.
That kind of presumptuous authority was one of the reasons I bolted.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
2Peter 3:15,&16 'And account that the long suffering of our Lord is Salvation;even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles,speaking in them these things;in which are some things hard to be understood,which they which are unlearned and unstable wrest,as they do also the other scriptures,unto their own destruction’
Hi ,MartinJordan,
Yes ,no doubt Peter has come a long distance by the time he writes both his letters .Very much was gained in experience and learning along the way .He knew also ,as can be seen in his second letter ,for him, his race was nearly complete 'Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle ’ .
But no doubt, so had all the rest of the apostles,when their course was also near completion.The legacy of Peter ,his influence ,and that authority ,which for his part ,he represented,with great courage , remains even to this very day.
However,as can be seen in my opening verses,Peter ,in humility,I would say,exemplifies the ‘wisdom’ of Paul ,and acknowledges that even for Peter ,there was much in the way of spiritual wrestling ,in order to grasp and comprehend an apparent superior spirituality that was contained in all those epistles written from Paul; treasure from above, of which Peter terms ,‘some things hard to be understood’ .
These ‘things’,Peter no doubt ,by the same wisdom also given to him,correctly,and with meekness declares to be on no less a level ( or authority) as ‘also the other scriptures’.
One of those ‘things’ that I would say Peter learned along the way,was,it seems to do with a certain question or dispute on the subject of circumcision .Galatians 2:11,
“But when Peter was come to Antioch,I withstood him to his face”
Verse 14, “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,
I said to Peter before them all”
Also apparent for me ,is the sheer volume of Paul’s scriptural writings ,that is in comparison with any other apostle,including Peter.
As to longevity of life and ministry ,it seems that that apostle whom Jesus loved and who the same leaned on Jesus breast,and in regards to his walk,Peter inquires ,‘and what of this man?’
John the writer of the Revelation ,outlived them all.
Then by what authority do Catholic teachings ,make Peter an authority over such as these?
T
Telstar
Guest
Hello, Bernard.
First of all, it’s quite obvious that Jesus chose each of His Apostles for specific reasons. It wasn’t just done willy-nilly, picking whoever He bumped into along the way. It was all done very carefully. They all had their own strengths and weaknesses, and each of them served a particular purpose according to their natural talents, of which Jesus was well aware. There was also a wide range in age, as some were older than Him (probably Peter and Andrew) and some even much younger (like John). Some of them were very simple men, with an average education, while others (like Paul and Matthew) were very highly educated. The point is, they were all chosen to fill particular positions within the group, according to their strengths. Their positions were not clearly defined early on, but as time went by they became more evident.
Peter was a commercial fisherman that had a lot of experience running a successful business, along with his brother, Andrew. He certainly must have been very good at managing his workers with authority; as well as everything else related to doing business, including the buying and selling of goods, and delegating his authority to others for specific tasks. These were certainly all needed talents for a strong leader. Jesus certainly didn’t create an early form of socialism or communism, but a solid ecclesiastical structure that could withstand the passage of time, without completely falling apart. Everyone had their own place within that structure.
There also had to be one leader that could sit in the place of Jesus, after His Ascension. One figure of authority that could make the final decisions that needed to be made; not on his own, but after sufficient discussion with the others. Just as in the Trinity there are three Persons, Who are most certainly All equal in God, the Father is still seen as being first in authority. Jesus always followed the will of the Father. Does that mean that Jesus is less important than the Father, in any way? Is He any less a part of God in Power or Glory? Of course not! It’s the same way in the Church that Jesus built.
There has to be a line of authority, or else there’s chaos. All we have to do is look at the thousands of Christian denominations that have been created since the time of Martin Luther to realize why this kind of basic structure was necessary. There are hundreds, if not thousands of times as many interpretations of the Bible by individuals. How can *anyone *know where the real truth is? Isn’t it obvious? Jesus said He would lead His Church “into all truth”, but every interpretation of Scripture out there can’t possibly be true. So, where is the Truth that Jesus promised us?
-continued in next post-
- Status