Peter the Rock or Peter's Faith?

[Sirach14]

I remember reading where Bob Sungenis posed this question to James White.

“Show me anyone(Catholic writer) before the year 400 who viewed the rock in Matthew 16:18, as anyone other that Peter.?”
This was over ten years ago, and to my knowledge Bob is still waiting for an answer.

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Sherlock:

Wow, you’re really having to work hard to avoid the obvious. In the verse you cite, there IS a connection between “this” and the Temple: the Temple was the dwelling place of God for the Old Covenant. By referring to Himself as a Temple, He indicates the New Covenant’s dwelling place—the Word Made Flesh, Himself. He connects Himself to the old Temple, but indirectly, which is why some of those present don’t “get it”.

When Jesus says, “And I tell YOU, YOU are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church…” (Matt 16:18) and “I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom…” (Matt 16:19—Look up Isaiah 22:20-22 for what the keys signify). He is speaking, not indirectly (as in the above verse about the Temple), but directly. In both cases, though, there is a connection.

In answer to your second question, Peter’s successors are the popes that have held the office since Peter’s time.

First, those Jews thought that Jesus was telling them to destroy the Old Testament Temple, while He was not saying that. You are doing the same mistake by building upon Peter…

Second, Jesus was not talking indirectly, because He was IN THE TEMPLE.

Third: in Matthew 16, Peter is not called THE rock, he is just called by his name “Peter”. And Jesus didn’t say that He would build His Church on that “Petros”, but on that “Petra”.

Do you know the difference between the personal name “Petros” which was given to Simon long time before, and the common name “petra”??

By the way, do you think that Peter was the first person to declare the truth about Jesus?

Finally, who told you that the Popes are the successors of Peter?

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Pax:

Theophilus,

Grammatically and exegetically Peter is the rock. Catholic apologist, James Akin, rightly argues: "In Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus makes three statements. All three begin with an assertion concerning Peter. Each assertion is then followed by a two-part elaboration consisting of a contrast (human/divine revelation, Christ’s/Satan’s activity, heavenly ratification of earthly binding/loosing). This elaboration develops the meaning of the principal assertion.

The exegetical structure of Matthew 16:17-19

Statement/Assertion 1
17 "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
Elaboration # ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
Elaboration # 2 but my Father who is in heaven.

Statement/Assertion 2
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,
Elaboration #1 and on this rock I will build my church,
Elaboration # 2 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Statement/Assertion 3
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
Elaboration #1 and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
Elaboration # 2 and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The exegetical structure of the passage demands that Peter be the rock:

Statements 1 and 3 have Peter as their principal subject, therefore statement 2 does as well.

Statements 1 and 3 are blessings on Peter, therefore statement 2 is as well. The elaborations in statements 1 and 3 develop the meaning of the assertions in those statements, therefore the elaborations in statement 2 develop the meaning of statement 2.

Faced with these facts, as well as others … I was forced to conclude that Peter is, indeed the rock that Jesus was speaking of. Many Evangelical exegetes admit the same thing. However, they immediately try to block any implications being drawn from this fact. They try to shut down the chain of inference and isolate the datum so that it cannot give rise to any ecclesiological inferences."

I hope this explanation by Akin helps.

Philosophy…

While the Bible must be explained by other passages of the Bible. The Bible clearly says that no one can lay another foundation or corner stone than Jesus Christ.

You always need to explain difficult passages by clear passages, not clear passages by difficult passages… For instance, you can’t say Jesus is not God because He “clearly” said that the Father is greater than Himself…

THEOPHILUS†

 

[THEOPHILUS]

Sirach14:

I remember reading where Bob Sungenis posed this question to James White.

“Show me anyone(Catholic writer) before the year 400 who viewed the rock in Matthew 16:18, as anyone other that Peter.?”
This was over ten years ago, and to my knowledge Bob is still waiting for an answer.

This is to YOUR knowledge. But if you just open the Bible and read, you will find many Christians, the APOSTLES themselves, and Peter himself, saying that JESUS is that ROCK.

And if you open your Bible to OTHER passages than Matthew 16:18, you will find out that Jesus didn’t want any human to be the Rock upon which He would build His Church, specially a person like Peter who was called just after a few verses in Matthew as “Satan”:

“But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”” ( Matthew 16:23 )

I remind you that Jesus said this TO PETER…

I would like to ask you to quote for me any Christian writer before the year 2005 A.D. who viewed the Satan in Matthew 16:23 as anyone other than Peter… I guess I’ll have to wait until I see Jesus coming in the clouds…

THEOPHILUS†

 

[Todd_Easton]

THEOPHILUS†:

And if you open your Bible to OTHER passages than Matthew 16:18, you will find out that Jesus didn’t want any human to be the Rock upon which He would build His Church, specially a person like Peter who was called just after a few verses in Matthew as “Satan”:

Here are two other Bible passages where the Church is described as being built, at least in part, upon Peter:

St. Paul describes the Church as “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles…” (Ephesians 2:20)

In St. John’s vision of the New Jerusalem, “the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:14)

 

[Pax]

THEOPHILUS†:

Philosophy…

While the Bible must be explained by other passages of the Bible. The Bible clearly says that no one can lay another foundation or corner stone than Jesus Christ.

You always need to explain difficult passages by clear passages, not clear passages by difficult passages… For instance, you can’t say Jesus is not God because He “clearly” said that the Father is greater than Himself…

THEOPHILUS†

This is not philosophy but rather grammar and linguistics. The Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18 in no way denies that Jesus is the cornerstone. Jesus is not only the cornerstone but he is also the architect of his church. As the architect of his church he establishes Peter as the rock. By the way…Peter means rock and the petros vs. petra gambit has been explained numerous times. In a French bible it says, “pierre” and upon this “pierre” I will build my church. The name Peter and rock are synonymous. The Greek language is gender sensitive and petros had to be used instead of petra for Peter’s name because it would have been similar to calling a man named Pat, Patricia. The Greek translation required the gender to be masculine and not femine in reference to the name given Simon by Jesus. This does not require a "rock"et scientist or a philosopher to figure out. It is an issue of linguistics.

 

[mercygate]

Pax:

This does not require a "rock"et scientist or a philosopher to figure out. It is an issue of linguistics.

“Rock"et scientist”? Groan. In NYC we would have to be careful lest someone using the Petros/Petra quibble accuse us of attemting “Rockette” science.

Have you noticed? Theophilus has left the building.