Question on Matthew 5:29

[irenaeuslyons]

No one is commanded to build upon a mere man such as Peter or any Apostle.

Even Paul calls him Cephas which is a transliteration of the Aramaic word for large rock. To dispute the plain meaning of the scripture in all these different places seems intellectually dishonest. By recognizing Peter as the rock does not exclude Christ from being the rock in other verses when that is the devotional language being used. Why did Jesus rename him to Rock/Peter if he wasn’t a rock? Why did Paul call him Rock/Cephas if he wasn’t a rock? It is tiresome to read such willful ignorance.

Yes, Peter was a mere man and not divine. That’s why Christ prayed that Peters faith would not fail, and for no other apostle. He did this because he gave Peter authority which was already covered in numerous posts. Christ’s prayers do not get ignored. Peter was the leader and confirmed his brethren. Jesus purposely used the language of Isa 22:22 when saying Mt 16:19. So that the hearers would recognize that Peter was the new steward of the house belonging to Christ the King, with the keys to the Kingdom of God.

 

[De_Maria]

All of us are commanded to build upon the Rock of Christ.

True.

No one is commanded to build upon a mere man such as Peter or any Apostle.

Who said that we were? The only one who has broached that idea, is you.

We build upon the revelation God gave to those men, which begins with Jesus the Christ.

Correct.

Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.

Still true.

Please show the unity of thought among the apostles on Peter.

They all called Simon, Peter. In so doing, they recognized that Jesus Christ had appointed Him their leader.

If you can produce this I will become Catholic today.

I expect to see you in Church, tomorrow.

Remember Paul’s teaching on this he said "I planted, Apollo watered but God gave the increase. 1st Cor.3. This foundation was built upon Christ.

Who said it wasn’t?

Paul said the foundation is the APOSTLES (not just Peter) prophets Jesus Christ the Chief cornerstone. Eph.2:20.

True. So, are you saying that St. Paul contradicts Jesus Christ? Did Jesus Christ, the Bishop of our souls, say that He would build the Church upon Peter? Yes or no.

These verses over rule any tradition of man.

They do. But your interpretation of those verses is flawed.

First of all, Jesus Christ said that He would build His Church on Peter. And we believe Him. It sounds like you don’t.
Second, St. Paul also believes and obeys Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

And St. Paul also called Simon, Cephas. Which means, Peter. Thus recognizing the role to which Jesus Christ appointed Simon.

Finally, you are confusing metaphors. Jesus Christ used the “rock” metaphor to show that He would build His Church upon St. Peter. But the assumption is that He does so because St. Peter is faithful to Him. But you, in your zeal to defend your doctrines of men, act as though we believe that Jesus somehow built the Church upon St. Peter and now we focus on St. Peter instead of Christ. But that is merely your self righteous imagination telling you that you are faithful to Christ and we aren’t.

We believe Jesus’ words. You deny them. That’s a fact gleaned from these exchanges.

Did Jesus build His Church upon St. Peter? Yes or no. Answer that question.

 

[Gorgias]

But we understand, based on Luke 11:52, that this key is a metaphorical key of knowledge and understanding.

Hang on a second – talk about a “first-year seminarian mistake”! Look at the claim you’re making: you’re saying that, just because there’s an metaphorical use of a term in a book of Scripture, that means that any use of that term in any other book of Scripture must therefore be metaphorical as well!

Not only is that just plain illogical, it’s un-Scriptural as well! Can you demonstrate the truth of this heuristic from the Bible? And when you’re not able to do so, will you admit that it’s merely a “tradition of men”?

Christ will build His Church on the ROCK of revelation Peter had just uttered, was the point.
… and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT. against what “it?” The revelation that Jesus is the Christ.

Two thoughts:

• So, Peter is the ‘rock’, but Jesus gives him a new name (always a pivotal moment in Scripture!) and then subsequently completely ignores the connection between the new name and what’s going on? That’s poor exegesis.
• The “it” is feminine. So, if the ‘rock’ is “revelation” and it is neuter, then “it” cannot be referring to either “rock” or “revelation”. It must be referring to the church (ecclesia, which is feminine).

Again: first-year seminary stuff here, brother.

Please show the unity of thought among the apostles on Peter. If you can produce this I will become Catholic today.

Please show us the unity of thought among Protestants. If you can produce this, I will become a Protestant today.

(See how unreasonable an assertion that is? )

 

[Wm777]

not as extreme but I believe st francis rolled through thorns to avoid a temptress of lust. I could be wrong

He did roll in some thorns at one point to thwart a temptation.

But I think the passage you might be referring to is when he sat in a fire to show a middle eastern temptress what it would be like to succumb to the temptation of lust. I think it might have been one of Saladin’s wives or daughters or slaves or something… In any case, if I recall it correctly, she was coming onto him, and that’s how he got rid of her…

 

[tgGodsway]

is tiresome to read such willful ignorance.

I agree on one point. It is tiresome to read such “willful ignorance” as you say. I do not argue against Peter’s name meaning rock=petros. Jesus said, "And you are Peter (v18) ( -petros=rock this word is found in a masculine gender,) … and upon this ROCK=Petra, (a change in the Greek word and in it’s grammatical gender to a neutered state, which indicates a non-living noun.) I shall build my Church.

The petra Jesus would build His Church upon stated in this very specific context and based on the very statement Peter just uttered, “Jesus is the Christ!” is a non-living noun. At no time did Jesus say He would build His Church on Petros, is the point. The unwillingness to acknowledge this fact by the CC is troublesome. Words matter.

In the larger context Peter just answered Jesus’ question correctly: Who do men say I am? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” v16. It was a pivotal question ask to (not only Peter) but all His disciples for which Peter alone answered correctly at the time. The rest of the conversation was pointed at Peter only for the reasons just stated.

However, to even suggest Jesus was going to build his Church on Peter=petra, is not only unverifiable by any Greek text, or by any other biblical witness, is laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

The idea supposedly supported by Isaiah 22 of some kind of duel founder of the Church, (or vicar of Christ) is a concept found only outside of the apostolic circle. There is not a hint of it found anywhere among the earliest eyewitnesses to Christ.

The Isaiah 22 passage points only to Christ (In type) who shares His glory with no other. He alone opens doors no man can open and closes doors no man can close. So far no one has shown me even one convincing argument that the apostles understood Peter to have this role.

 

[tgGodsway]

Hang on a second – talk about a “first-year seminarian mistake”! Look at the claim you’re making: you’re saying that, just because there’s an metaphorical use of a term in a book of Scripture, that means that any use of that term in any other book of Scripture must therefore be metaphorical as well!

Not only is that just plain illogical, it’s un-Scriptural as well! Can you demonstrate the truth of this heuristic from the Bible? And when you’re not able to do so, will you admit that it’s merely a “tradition of men”?

Gorgias, good to hear from you. It’s been a while. Jesus used the word “KEYS of Hades,” in reference to hell. Surely it wasn’t about literal, physical, keys in Rev. 1:18 was it?

The Luke 11:52 passages talks about the KEY of knowledge. This must be a figure of speech, right? How is knowledge opened by a literal key?

Jesus used the word KEYS of the kingdom, (Mt. 16) Again, was he talking about literal keys of a literal kingdom? If so, we haven’t seen that literal kingdom yet?

Nowhere else in the N.T. are these words used at all. What else did you have in mind? If you have this word (KEYS) used in a N.T. passage in a literal sense, I’ve love to see it.

But the immediate context gets to decide how to interpret, literal or figurative. Surely even a second year seminary student will know this hermeneutic. Right?

As far as traditions of men, I’m not sure what the heck you’re talking about my friend.
Blessings to you.

 

[tgGodsway]

• So, Peter is the ‘rock’, but Jesus gives him a new name (always a pivotal moment in Scripture!) and then subsequently completely ignores the connection between the new name and what’s going on? That’s poor exegesis.
• The “it” is feminine . So, if the ‘rock’ is “revelation” and it is neuter, then “it” cannot be referring to either “rock” or “revelation”. It must be referring to the church (ecclesia, which is feminine).

Again: first-year seminary stuff here, brother.

I agree, Peter’s name was Simon Bar-Jonah. But something happened!.. Something that "flesh and blood could not do! Only the Father in heaven could give Simon the revelation that Jesus is the Christ. This new revelation by Simon deserved a name change. "Blessed are you Simon… and I ALSO say to you… you are PETER=ROCK! … . Why was Simon’s name changed to Peter?.. was it because he was so good looking?.. was it because he was simply better than the rest of the them? what?.. No!.. Jesus responded to Simon with a change of name only as a response to Simon’s answer to the ever so important question. … who do men say I am?

Jesus said, "upon this rock (=Petra=a neutered noun, signifying a play on words from the English translation, but also a change in the noun itself.) Petros to Petra… I will build!

Upon a non-living rock-petros I will build my Church. What non-living (rock=petros) could Jesus be speaking of that would result in the very genesis of the Church? Better yet, what in the immediate context answers that question?.. It was Simon’s divine declaration of Truth, which the way is brought up one last time by Jesus himself in verse 20. “Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.” From this point on, the subject matter changes.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Jesus said, "And you are Peter (v18) ( -petros=rock this word is found in a masculine gender,) … and upon this ROCK=Petra, (a change in the Greek word and in it’s grammatical gender to a neutered state, which indicates a non-living noun.) I shall build my Church.

Wrong. Last I checked, the word “child” (paidion) was a neuter noun that refers to a living thing in Greek, which occurs many times in the NT and OT.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I agree, Peter’s name was Simon Bar-Jonah. But something happened!.. Something that "flesh and blood could not do! Only the Father in heaven could give Simon the revelation that Jesus is the Christ. This new revelation by Simon deserved a name change.

Whenever God changes your name, it’s not a meaningless compliment signifying nothing, as you have described. He changes your name when he gives you a new vocation. This has happened many times in the bible. Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, etc. People are identified/called by their names. If God changes your name as it is written in the book of life, you are fundamentally a different person, with a different mission in life. Jesus gave him a different mission in those verses just as he did to the others in the OT.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Please show the unity of thought among the apostles on Peter. If you can produce this I will become Catholic today.

St. Clement. The very same person who labored with St. Paul. When Peter and the first two popes were martyred he sat in the Chair of Peter. Amazing how all of the sudden St. Clement uses the authority of the Petrine Office, and exercises it against other churches.

Phil 4:3 • ‘And I entreat thee also, my sincere companion, help those women who have laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement and the rest of my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life.’

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

 

[De_Maria]

Upon a non-living rock-petros I will build my Church. What non-living (rock=petros) could Jesus be speaking of that would result in the very genesis of the Church? Better yet, what in the immediate context answers that question?..

Upon a non-living rock-petros ???

Where did “non-living” come from?

 

[tgGodsway]

Jesus gave him a different mission in those verses just as he did to the others in the OT.

Agreed. Name change usually indicates a change of disposition. All agreed. In question here is what was the change made for Peter? Peter was the denying Simon who ran away from the Lord until Jesus prayed for him. But this change was yet to come. Peter on the day of Pentecost became bold as a lion even willing to be crucified for his Lord. All agreed. Surely he was a rock, no doubt!

But all of this falls short of saying what the CC says. You say he became a bishop over a universal flock. What was it, 41 ad.?.. something like that. This one piece of information falls flat on it’s face with any biblical narrative. You would think other Apostles would make mention of him in this new light. Nope, not a one. You would think the apostle Paul would at least make mention of him as the vicar of Christ on his way to Rome? Nope … Better yet, you would think the Apostle Paul would actually teach his readers on the office of Vicar of Christ. especially when he taught on the five-fold ministry gifts in Ephesians 4:11? he never mentioned such an office or ministry.

You would think, one of the gospel writers would explain this new position in light of N.T. doctrine on church government. Nope, no one. Not even one sentence about Peter being the vicar of Christ on earth, as Christ sits on his throne in heaven. Not even one.

Paul did not wait for Peter’s approval when he wrote his doctrine and preached in the streets of Palestine. James, in Jerusalem did not wait to get Peter’s signature before preaching the good news. No one did, irenaeuslyons, this is the point.

The Papal view came over periods of time and far removed from the inner circle of the Apostolic Church. It was an idea imposed into Christine doctrine long after the founders of the faith had passed.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Paul did not wait for Peter’s approval when he wrote his doctrine and preached in the streets of Palestine.

Paul did not to start his ministry without first seeing Peter. He spent fifteen days with Peter before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul. He did this because Peter was appointed by Christ to be the leader of all Christians.

Gal 1:18 • ‘Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.’

 

[tgGodsway]

Wrong. Last I checked, the word “child” (paidion) was a neuter noun that refers to a living thing in Greek, which occurs many times in the NT and OT.

Male names are always in the masculine. Female names are always in the feminine. Some words like child can be neuter but it is arbitrary in most cases. Most objects are in the neuter, is the point.

The Matthew passage does not say "… you are petros and upon this petros I will build my Church!..
This is what it needs to say in order for your position to be valid. It does not and there is no Greek text that says it does.

The difference between petros and petra is significant, not just because petros is found in a masculine gender identifying Simon Peter, but also because petra causes the reader to move away from petros=Peter as the subject matter, and thus pointing to the only declarative statement of Christ found in the passage.

" and I ALSO say to you…v18 " is a response to Peter’s answer to “who do men say I am?”
you are petros, =peter … (In the same way that Peter said, “You are the Christ…” Jesus said you are(now) petros, =rock. ) … and on this ROCK = Petra= larger foundational rock in a neutered form, suggesting a significant change in thought!.. I will build …

 

[irenaeuslyons]

you are petros, =peter … (In the same way that Peter said, “You are the Christ…” Jesus said you are(now) petros, =rock. ) … and on this ROCK = Petra= larger foundational rock in a neutered form, suggesting a significant change in thought!.. I will build

I will tell you why these arguments are all false claims. Jesus was speaking Aramaic when he spoke this verse. He called Peter Kepha. Kepha means rock. Cephas is the transliterated word Kepha from Aramaic into Greek. Consider also, that in Greek kephale means head (Eph 5:23) and also the name Caiphas is based off the Aramaic root (Remember what he was the head of?). Note that below, in the language that Jesus actually spoke, your grammatical gymnastics in Greek fall completely apart.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Note that the highlighted word for rock in Aramaic is the same for both Peter and the Rock to be built on. Also note that John makes sure that we know the original word because things can be lost in translation.

Jn 1:42 • ‘And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.’

I was just showing the verse below to illustrate the use of Cephas, but its also proves the same theme, in that Peter is always first, because he is the head.

1 Cor 15:5 • ‘And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.’

 

[tgGodsway]

Was it Christ point to say if your physical eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Mt18? Can a physical eye actually be to blame?

 

[tgGodsway]

Irenaeuslyons, you know as well as I do that you have no solid proof to the Aramaic. Scholars took a guess. However it is common knowledge that Greek was the trending language of Jesus Day. With that said, this debate does not stand or fall on this one Matthew verse. The idea that the Church was built on Peter flies right in the face of the Holy Spirit’s teaching in Ephesians 2:20 where Paul said the church is built upon (all) the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. You haven’t make your case with any witness in my view.

 

[tgGodsway]

I guess you didn’t understand the answer. You want to see it in Scripture. It is not from Scripture. We don’t support the idea that everything must be in Scripture.

Yes I understand this, but when I say please show it to me from the scriptures, you must know I am asking you to show the matter from the divinely inspired and preserved doctrines of the founders of Christianity. These writings are actually not so much from them, but from God Himself. Surely you can understand why I appeal to the “scriptures.” Any surviving tradition should only be a carbon copy of the preserved word of God. If there are any contradictions between the two, the inspired word gets preeminence.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

I guess you didn’t understand the answer. You want to see it in Scripture. It is not from Scripture. We don’t support the idea that everything must be in Scripture.

Yes I understand this,

Do you agree with it? (the idea that not everything is in Scripture)

but when I say please show it to me from the scriptures, you must know I am asking you to show the matter from the divinely inspired and preserved doctrines of the founders of Christianity.

The Traditions of the Catholic Church are they. Listen.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

THIS IS NOT SPEAKING OF SCRIPTURE AT ALL.

Hold the Traditions is referring to that which Jesus Christ commanded the Apostles to Teach.

By word or by Epistle is referring to the Teaching of the Apostles by word and the letters which they were writing to the Churches.

The Old Testament was the only existing divinely inspired Scripture of the time.

Catholic Church Tradition consists of the divinely inspired and preserved doctrines of the founders of Christianity.

These writings are actually not so much from them, but from God Himself.

Because the Traditions are from God Himself.

Surely you can understand why I appeal to the “scriptures.”

No. Jesus Christ did not tell you to appeal to the Scriptures. He appointed the Church to Teach you His commands and the Scriptures instruct you to listen to your rulers in the Church. There is no instruction from Jesus Christ for you to appeal to the Scriptures alone. There is no instruction from the Scriptures for you to appeal to Scripture alone. You disobey Christ when you do so.

Any surviving tradition should only be a carbon copy of the preserved word of God.

The Word of God has survived in the Traditions of the Catholic Church. Including the true Scriptures properly explained and understood.

If there are any contradictions between the two, the inspired word gets preeminence.

Jesus Christ appointed a Church to tell you what takes pre-eminence. And it isn’t your interpretation of the Scriptures alone. Because that is what you reading the Scriptures alone, amounts to. Your interpretation.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

tgGodsway
I suspect one day, when you least expect it, your eyes are going to be opened. Peace