Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

[BibleReader]

Contarini:

BibleReader,

In particular, I don’t know how you would expect me to be convinced by an interpretation that went against the literal meaning of the passage (in which Absalom is clearly not a redemptive figure). The Fathers did this kind of thing too (interpreting the David and Bathsheba story as an allegory of Christ overcoming the Devil and “seducing” humanity away from his power). But any validity it has depends on the fact that what you are teaching appears clearly elsewhere in Scripture.

Edwin

It is interesting that you criticize the Fathers, as I do when I say that the Fathers erred.

Note that in your analysis, since it turns out that you ignore the Bible, and criticize the Fathers, all that is left untrammled is your perspective.

Philosophically, typology, especially Old Testament typology, is better than “arguing in a circle.”

It is fairly reliable that the last thing we would find in the Jewish books are word-pictures of Christ.

Yet, the Old Testament is jammed with them.

Suppose I’m in a C-130, flying over Afghanistan, with a bucket of 1,000,000 nickles.

Suddenly, the doors are accidentally opened, and all 1,000,000 nickles fly out.

They all land on the desert floor heads-up.

That’s significant.

Well, that’s also typology.

 

[blackfish152]

BibleReader:

The Bible frequently uses sin symbols and bad guys to symbolize Christ. Paul figured out why.

Example of another sin symbol used to symbolize Christ: The bronze SERPENT on a pole, which Christ compares Himself to in John 3.

QUOTE]

this is off subject sorry! but bible reader

The Bronze serpent is surely a sin redemption figure, not solely a sin figure???

 

[Hildebrand]

blackstone:

It does not matter if Jesus called Peter a rock or a stone or a pebble. When Jesus said “upon this this rock I will build my Church” Jesus was not refering to Peter but to Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” the same confession of faith that every true Christian makes. On this the early Church Father agree.

Not correct…

Origen:

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church

[Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (*Homilies on Exodus *5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church

, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." (*The Unity of the Catholic Church **4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Firmilian:

"[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid

[Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s *Letters *74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

Ephraim the Syrian:

[explaination of Matt 16:18] "‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church.

I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus of Milevus:

"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas

‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. (*The Schism of the Donatists *2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan:

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church

[Matt. 16:18]?" (*The Faith *4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (*Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David *40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Jerome:

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built.

Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (*Letters *15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine:

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church

, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement." (*Letters *53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

 

[Hildebrand]

con’t…

Council of Ephesus:

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church

, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race…" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles

. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (*Letters *10:1 [A.D. 445]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

 

[Contarini]

BibleReader:

The Bible frequently uses sin symbols and bad guys to symbolize Christ. Paul figured out why.

Example of another sin symbol used to symbolize Christ: The bronze SERPENT on a pole, which Christ compares Himself to in John 3.

“Absalom,” by the way, means “King of Peace,” just as Isaiah refers to Christ as “Prince of Peace.”

One cute coincidence is a cute coincidence.

One thousand cute coincidences is God talking.

Again, I don’t have a problem with it as long as you don’t try to prove anything from it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

BibleReader:

It is interesting that you criticize the Fathers, as I do when I say that the Fathers erred.

I never said you can’t disagree with the Fathers. I said you can’t dismiss them. I don’t dismiss the patristic interpretation of David and Bathsheba–on the contrary, I mention it as the only reason why I’d take your wacky interpretation of Absalom seriously. You on the other hand are cavalierly dismissing a basic hermeneutical principle because it doesn’t suit you. There’s a huge difference.

BibleReader:

Note that in your analysis, since it turns out that you ignore the Bible,

As long as you claim that rejecting your personal interpretations is “ignoring the Bible,” people will have trouble taking you seriously. How can you not see how arrogant this sounds?

BibleReader:

and criticize the Fathers, all that is left untrammled is your perspective.

No, my perspective is not “untrammeled.” I frequently doubt my own views when I find them contradicted by sources I trust. You aren’t one of those sources, yet. But the Fathers are. That doesn’t mean that I accept everything I find anywhere in the Fathers. But I take them seriously, and when they reach consensus on something I take it very seriously.

BibleReader:

Philosophically, typology, especially Old Testament typology, is better than “arguing in a circle.”

I’m not arguing in a circle at all. I never said that everything found in the Fathers should be swallowed wholesale. On the contrary, I mentioned the patristic interpretation of David and Bathsheba as the only reason why I’d give your reading of Absalom the time of day.

You on the other hand are arguing in a circle, because you identify your own hermeneutical system with the true meaning of Scripture, and dismiss anything that challenges it. Therefore, you have no way of breaking out of the closed circle of your own ingenious interpretations. This is what happens when you rely excessively on allegory.

BibleReader:

It is fairly reliable that the last thing we would find in the Jewish books are word-pictures of Christ.

Why? We are Christians, and we are reading the Old Testament with the belief that it points to Christ. Why wouldn’t we find pictures of Christ? This makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[SpiritualBeing]

mercygate:

William, I am sure you are not kidding, but you cannot REALLY think that Catholics believe that Peter is a God? So you agree that Peter and his successors are the head of the Church. And Jesus says to Peter, “but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and whenyou have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Catholics view Peter’s denial, this prayer of Jesus for his return, and Peter’s 3-fold affirmation of love in John 21 as all part of the picture. Catholics would seriously object to your implication here that Jesus would contradict God.

We view the Church on earth as a manifestation of the Incarnation. Just as Jesus had a physical body when he walked among us as a man, so he has a visible, physical, identifiable body now that he has ascended to Heaven. That is the Church, whose center is the Catholic Church. Jesus is the Head of the Church, of course. His deputy on earth is the successor of Peter. The Pope is the visible sign of unity in the Church. This is not nearly as threatening a doctrine as many people make it out to be.

Catholics would seriously object to your implication here that Jesus would contradict God.

I believe Jesus would not contradict Himself, because He is the Rock of the Old Testament, the same Rock, as in Paul, They all drank spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual Rock; the Rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Spiritual drink means truth. Rock means truth and faith, it depends on how you explain it. The Lord mentions the word rock in many places in the Gospels. Jesus said, “Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Everyone that cometh unto Me, and heareth My words, and doeth them, he is like a man building a house, and he laid a foundation upon rock, bedrock He meant, which is the foundation of faith; but he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that built a house upon lose sand, without bedrock as its foundation (Luke 6:46-49).”

Will a building stand up if built on sand, when there is an earthquake? In NYC, most buildings are built on bedrock. The house means the soul. There are foolish people who built their house close to the ocean, only to see it fall, when a big storm hits.

William

 

[E.E.N.S]

Again (just to bring the reference down) -

**552 **Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven*.*" The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

 

[BibleReader]

Contarini:

You on the other hand are arguing in a circle, because you identify your own hermeneutical system with the true meaning of Scripture, and dismiss anything that challenges it. Therefore, you have no way of breaking out of the closed circle of your own ingenious interpretations. This is what happens when you rely excessively on allegory.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin. Over in Sacred Scripture, about 2x per wk I post Biblical cryptograms. There are about half a dozen cryptogram solvers over there, all of whom come up with the same answer, and they are certain that they are right when they do come up with an answer, practically speaking, because the internal logic of the code is too compelling, the coincidence too great, for the answer to be different than what was decoded.

Typology logic works the same way. Once the system is learned, the typologist realizes that the answer perceived is too good to be incorrect.

As a result, those who learned the system frequently surprise themselves when, working independently of other typologists, they come up with the same result.

So, no boot-strapping, no circular logic is happening in typology. It is the consistency of the interps, after one uses the system we deduce from the context, which verifies the interps.

Somewhere in Scripture, I think in the Wisdom literature, one person of God is talking to the other, saying, “We can put the food in front of them, but will they bother to raise it to the mouth?,” or words to that effect.

Will you? You don’t sound like you will.

 

[steve99]

The following link to Marcellino D’Ambrosio’s site has an interesting look at the questions of Peter, the Papacy and the Bible.
crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/709/Peter__the_Pope_and_the_Bible_.html

 

[Contarini]

BibleReader:

Will you? You don’t sound like you will.

Sorry, but my answer remains the same. I’ll stick with the Fathers. When you give me reason to think that you’re building on that tradition instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, I’ll give your interpretations the time of day.

I grew up in the heart of American individualistic religion. I know the feel of it, even when I encounter it in Catholicism.

Nothing about what you say indicates that you aren’t trapped in a self-referential circle. On the contrary, the very harmony and logic of your system as you describe it is highly suspicious. The Bible is not a code book. Attempts to treat it as such are foolish at best and usually lead to heresy.

Edwin

 

[BibleReader]

Contarini:

Sorry, but my answer remains the same. I’ll stick with the Fathers. When you give me reason to think that you’re building on that tradition instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, I’ll give your interpretations the time of day.

I grew up in the heart of American individualistic religion. I know the feel of it, even when I encounter it in Catholicism.

Nothing about what you say indicates that you aren’t trapped in a self-referential circle. On the contrary, the very harmony and logic of your system as you describe it is highly suspicious. The Bible is not a code book. Attempts to treat it as such are foolish at best and usually lead to heresy.

Edwin

You are wrong, friend. While The Bible Code is clearly fake, Christ almighty God Himself uses typology.

But, that is okay.

Goodbye, friend.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BibleReader:

Suppose I’m in a C-130, flying over Afghanistan, with a bucket of 1,000,000 nickles.

Suddenly, the doors are accidentally opened, and all 1,000,000 nickles fly out.

They all land on the desert floor heads-up.

That’s significant.

According to this site that would be about 5,000,000 grams which equals about 5.5 tons. How much weight can a C130 hold? Cant be a bucket you know, more like crates.

Anyway about them all landing heads up…for about 4.29 million dollars there is a logical explaination…%between%

 

[YADA]

When attepting to discern the meaning and relationship in the exchange between Jesus and Peter, it is imperative to look at the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus quotes. Isaiah cleaarly shows that the House of David was managed by the Prime Minister. Although the Kingdom was David’s (long dead at the time of Isaiah but whose reign continued) and the King was the Supreme Authority, the Prime Minister held a “key” and served as an authority. The Prime Minister was a **“FATHER” **to the people. Note, he was not the KING or the Supeme Authority. However, he was empowered by the King (and clearly in Isaiah by GOD) to **“open…what no one could close…and close…what no one could open” **This Prime Minister was to be a father to the people, not a corrupt abuser but a FATHER (Abba, Papa or as we call him today, Pope).

Jesus is the the embodiment, the fullfilment of the Davidic Covenant. He Is, Who Was and Who is to Come, Sovereign, Lord of Lord and God. The “keys” are his to entrust and Peter was the one entrusted.

Jesus (as Messiah per Peter’s confession) granted that authority to Peter in the same manner that an evil Prime Minister was replaced in the time of Isaiah. Peter was cloaked and given the keys.

The argument that Jesus is referening back to himself as the “Rock” or that the “confession” becomes the rock makes the giving of the keys non-sensical. You do not give keys" (something you already possess) to yourself . Nor can you give the keys to a “confession of faith.” This is what comes from beginning an understanding of a bible passage with a predetermined interpretation in isolation from its context. Without reading the passage being quoted from Isaiah you become free to force a variety of interpretations and conclusions.

Peter was commanded to “Feed my sheep” Does that command to Peter to feed the people of Christ mean that Peter becomes the Shephard and Jesus ceases to be the “Good Shephard”? Of course not, that would be absurd. In the same way, renaming Simon, Peter and giving him a service to do takes nothing from Christ.

Praise be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as ALL our salvation flows from God’s Mercy…Pax Christe

 

[big_guy144]

Folks, eternity is a thread of life away. One heart beat away. One breath away. One drive home away. Look, Peter was no ROCK. Peter cannot be the ROCK because his name (Cephas) means A STONE!

“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation,** A stone**.” John 1:42.

Who builds a CHURCH on a STONE? Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. If he therefore is God, then have your Church interpret these scriptures:

“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he,” Deuteronomy 32:4

“O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges,” Deuteronomy 32:29-31.

“Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee,” Deuteronomy 32:18

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. " 1 Corinthians 10:4

If you are putting your trust in a MAN (the pope and his church) and not in GOD (Jesus Christ), you are going to face serious judgment. The Lord’s Church is BEYOND the walls of buildings.

“Hath not my hands made all these things?” Acts 7:50.

Eternal Life is a free gift! Just accept it!
(Removed link to anti-Catholic website)

Oh and by the way, your rock (stone, aka., Cephas) is not like my ROCK (Jesus Christ).

YOUR ROCK----
“And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man,” Acts 10:25-26.“When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Luke 5:8 MY ROCK—
“And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:16

“And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.” Revelation 19:13-14

 

[Pythagoras]

big_guy144:

Folks, eternity is a thread of life away. One heart beat away. One breath away. One drive home away. Look, Peter was no ROCK. Peter cannot be the ROCK because his name (Cephas) means A STONE!

You better look at a dictionary

Cephas means rock (without gender) and not stone.
Evna is the stone in Aramaic

 

[mercygate]

big_guy144:

Folks, eternity is a thread of life away. One heart beat away. One breath away. One drive home away. Look, Peter was no ROCK. Peter cannot be the ROCK because his name (Cephas) means A STONE!

big_guy, I guess you didn’t read the whole thread. Follow the link in post #108. All this rock/Rock/stone/Petros/petra stuff has been thoroughly exhausted in the scholarly literature, and even Protestants no longer grind away at the untenable position that Jesus is not referring to Peter and Peter’s Confession in this passage. You’re wearing yourself defending the discredited side of a closed argument.

What you have to do now is create a rationale for excluding Peter and those in communion with him from your church.

Hope to see you in RCIA.

 

[stargazer257]

Pythagoras:

Cephas means rock (without gender) and not stone.
Evna is the stone in Aramaic

Ba-Da-Bing!

 

[Bishopite]

Contarini:

No, it doesn’t work that way. Most Catholics would agree that the Papacy has developed from the time of Peter, so accepting that Peter was some kind of leader of the early Church doesn’t automatically endorse everything that happened later. (And on the other side, I for one think it’s clear that the papacy is a development from something established by Jesus in this passage.)

There are two major hurdles that Catholics have to overcome:

1. You have to show that the bishops of Rome have received Peter’s authority in a manner qualitatively different from that in which other bishops have received it. There are a good many patristic passages that can be cited on both sides of this one, so you hardly have a clear-cut case.

That is the basis for Matt 16:15-19. Jesus “only” gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” which NO other Bishop nor anyone for that matter gets. The keys are Old Testament language that shows ‘who’ now has authority. Remember, Jesus is the King (He’s God) but His kingdom isn’t on Earth, no it’s a spiritual kingdom with the militant workers, i.e. you and I on Earth. Jesus is about to die and go back to the Father in heaven and He leaves the “keys of the kingdom” to His majordomo, His steward who will be in charge on Earth until He returns. Now we know some stewards are faithful and some unfaithful, nevertheless, Jesus is appointing Peter as the head steward, the one in charge just as Isaiah 22 points out with Eliakim and Hilkiah in an Old Testament type; we know OT types always point to the fulfullment but are never themselves the fulfillment. In Matt 18 the Apostles receive the ability to bind and loose sin as does Peter but they NEVER receive the keys of the kingdom. Apostolic succession from the Apostles to the Bishops is found in verses like Acts 1:20, 2 Tim 2:2 and there are many more Scriptural verses for that argument but not enough time or room on this posting. The keys of the kingdom or a universal call as the authority of the Church because Jesus is building His Church upon the kepha which is Rock in Aramaic. The Greek also supports Peter as Rock since lithos is the word for little rock but Petra/Petros is just the masculine and feminine forms which is the correct way of describing something masculine like Peter and feminin like a rock.

1. You have to show that the power Jesus granted Peter included the charism of infallibility, such that in any major church-dividing controversy Peter’s successors (this of course depends on pt. 1) will represent the true Church.

Well, first of all Jesus says ***Upon this rock (Kepha/Peter) I will build my Church Jesus’ Church which is a Church not a plethora of Churches and the charism of infallibility being that it’s negative one (that Jesus won’t let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church) is that Jesus won’t let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church e.g. that His Church won’t teach error and the logical extention to that is Peter has the charism of infallibility and passes it on to his successors, but they are only protected from teaching universal error, that is from promolgating a dogma on the universal Church. Jesus only established “a Church” not “Churches.”

This is the real sticking point for me. I accept that the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter (whether this can be said to be by direct divine authority or simply by providential, historical development I’m not sure). But I am not convinced that any division between them and other Christians amounts to a rebellion against Christ’s Church on the part of the other Christians.

I see but having many Churches without one of them having the truth falls into the error of non-contradiction, in other words Christ can’t establish “a Church” and “Churches” at the same time and yet they all have differing doctrines without any clarity to “what” is true? If this were so, then that would simply be chaos in its truest form. I would liken that to saying my wife is pregnant and she’s not pregnant; essentially an oxymoron and impossiblity.

And that is really the key point. (Pt. 1 returns here, inasmuch as many of us think that the power given to all the apostles in chap. 18 is essentially the same as the power here given to Peter; thus, while we recognize the primacy of Rome, we don’t think that the power of the keys can simply be reduced to papal authority.)

Well, I see your delimna however, the keys are a source of authority as Charles Ryrie (a Fundamentalist theologian) points out in his NAS study bible on Matt 16. Ryrie no supporter of Catholicism at least admits that the keys are a source of authority which Mt 18 never mentions. Peter also has a name change (a change to Rock) which is another major signal as to why Mt 16 is so important; name changes signal special and significant events in Scripture.

 

[stargazer257]

A general reply to **big_guy144’**s interpretation of rock.

Ponder these verses of scripture:

In 1 Cor 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is Jesus Christ. Well that sounds good. Jesus can be the only foundation.

Now we have Eph 2:20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Well, that sounds good too, but what’s this about being built on the foundation of the Apostles, that seems to contradict 1 Cor 3:11 where Christ can be the only foundation.

Let’s mosey over to Revelation, Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Where’s Jesus in this description of a foundation in scripture? Is the Scripture confused? Of course not.

There is an explanation. For example, in the OT, 1 Sam 2:2, Is 44:8, and many other places God is referred to as “rock.” However, in Is 51:1-2 Abraham is referred to as “rock.” Is scripture confused here? No. Abraham and God both being rock is not a contradiction in that Abraham participates in God. Just the same, the Apostles can be the foundation because they are in Christ, the one foundation.

We have to look at ALL of sacred scripture, not just select verses, especially without knowledge of their audience, and the content before and after them.

Quoted by Big_guy144:

Oh and by the way, your rock (stone, aka., Cephas) is not like my ROCK (Jesus Christ).

And continuing this logical line of interpretation, the Church is built upon Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. (You have stated that is your belief and I think we all accept that. Guess what? I’ll let you in on a secret: Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Rock too! So you may want to take a Catholics’ word on what their beliefs are rather than to jump to an uninformed conclusion yourself [unless you are indeed infallible…] or to blindly accept an obviously biased interpretation of someone who has less than pure intentions.) The Church is also built upon Kepha (Peter) in that he participates in Jesus Christ. So Jesus is the rock, and Peter is the rock as well as he participates in Christ’s “rockness.” Remember, Jesus chose him. Who are we to tell Jesus otherwise?

And now a question for you: (Source: James Cardinal Gibbons) Do you not profess to be a member of Christ’s flock? Yes, you answer. Do you take your spiritual food from Peter and his successor, and do you hear the voice of Peter, or have you wandered into the fold of strangers who spurn Peter’s voice? Ponder well this momentous question. For if Peter is authorized to feed the lambs of Christ’s flock, the lambs should hear Peter’s voice. (remember, Jesus commanded Peter to feed his entire flock in John 21:15-17).