take a step back and have a look

[RobHom]

Bleah, it’s hot.

Well…down here its in the high 80’s and humidity is about 250%… Tropical Storm (almost a hurricane) Fay dumped about 31 inches of rain in the area…and its just “freakin’ wet”… So, with all the extra water laying around…we’re expecting a really wonderful “hatch” or three of mosquitoes…oh, joy .

You’re asking why translators did not translate Christ as the rock instead of Peter as the rock? Sorry, I wasn’t following the convo at length so am only able to get part of the gist of your question.

That’s pretty much it. To me all the bally-hoo about “big rock, little rock, small stone, and peanut butter”…is just smoke and mirrors…considering that what Mathew says in Mathew 16…and the fact that pretty much all the Bibles say exactly the same thing… it would seem that if Christ was saying “He is the rock” and “Peter is the manager”…who’s duty it is to just manage the Church…then Mathew would have said it in such a way as to make that abundantly clear. But its “clear” in the format that it is said, and odd-ball translations not withstanding, it really makes no difference…because the odd-ball translations don’t apply, because the Bible as printed does not agree with the odd-ball translation…

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well…down here its in the high 80’s and humidity is about 250%… Tropical Storm (almost a hurricane) Fay dumped about 31 inches of rain in the area…and its just “freakin’ wet”… So, with all the extra water laying around…we’re expecting a really wonderful “hatch” or three of mosquitoes…oh, joy .

I’ve only had the (dis)pleasure of being in Florida twice when I went to Disneyworld. Yeah…mosquito’s…state bird, no doubt about it.

That’s pretty much it. To me all the bally-hoo about “big rock, little rock, small stone, and peanut butter”…is just smoke and mirrors…considering that what Mathew says in Mathew 16…and the fact that pretty much all the Bibles say exactly the same thing… it would seem that if Christ was saying “He is the rock” and “Peter is the manager”…who’s duty it is to just manage the Church…then Mathew would have said it in such a way as to make that abundantly clear. But its “clear” in the format that it is said, and odd-ball translations not withstanding, it really makes no difference…because the odd-ball translations don’t apply, because the Bible as printed does not agree with the odd-ball translation…

Petros = crunchy peanut butter? LOL

I don’t quibble with Rome’s interpretation that Peter is the rock. Personally, I think the passage can be applied any number of ways. But there is no doubt that Christ is establishing the apostles as the foundation of the Church with Christ as the cornerstone and Peter as the head of the foundation. It is the resultant theology that is derived from it by Rome that I would disagree with. Way too much ink and gigabytes have been wasted arguing the whole “rock” thing anyway. Some of the fathers interpreted it as Peter, some of them interpreted it as his confession of faith, and some of them interpreted it as Christ.

In some way, shape or form, they’re probably all correct to a degree.

 

[RobHom]

I’ve only had the (dis)pleasure of being in Florida twice when I went to Disneyworld. Yeah…mosquito’s…state bird, no doubt about it.

Nah, we got the stupid “Mockingbird” for a state bird. Talk about “useless” critters. But the “skeeter” runs a close second… but up yonder in “Minneee-soter”… dey gots some killer skeeters!! Specially ‘round Camp Ripley…come dusk…everyone hides inside and the skeeters literally sound like “Cobra helicopters”, and I think two of them can carry off a 200 lb man! Of course the “skeeters” down in the “glades” are nothin’ to snort at!

Petros = crunchy peanut butter? LOL

I don’t quibble with Rome’s interpretation that Peter is the rock. Personally, I think the passage can be applied any number of ways. But there is no doubt that Christ is establishing the apostles as the foundation of the Church with Christ as the cornerstone and Peter as the head of the foundation. It is the resultant theology that is derived from it by Rome that I would disagree with. Way too much ink and gigabytes have been wasted arguing the whole “rock” thing anyway. Some of the fathers interpreted it as Peter, some of them interpreted it as his confession of faith, and some of them interpreted it as Christ.

In some way, shape or form, they’re probably all correct to a degree.

Way tooo many opinions anywhow…

 

[TriuneUnity]

Way tooo many opinions anywhow…

Probably. I think we just look at how the apostles themselves interpreted it. Peter did a bang up job in his epistles. I think it’s too much energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[RobHom]

Probably. I think we just look at how the apostles themselves interpreted it. Peter did a bang up job in his epistles. I think it’s too much energy that could be better spent elsewhere.

Uh-huh…but I’m gonna be a real “PIA” and hound “SIA” for his answer… Seems he often has some words to share, but he seems to be “evading” answering my question.

I think he should have the courtesy to answer…don’t you?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Uh-huh…but I’m gonna be a real “PIA” and hound “SIA” for his answer… Seems he often has some words to share, but he seems to be “evading” answering my question.

I think he should have the courtesy to answer…don’t you?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Uh-huh…but I’m gonna be a real “PIA” and hound “SIA” for his answer… Seems he often has some words to share, but he seems to be “evading” answering my question.

I think he should have the courtesy to answer…don’t you?

Okay, so, I’ve decided to weigh in on this because I’m a glutton for punishment. Our take on Matt 16:18. Feel free to respond, Rob:

In Jewish tradition, names were very important and functioned as titles that defined a person’s role in society. In fact, in the Jewish Torah, changing a persons name meant changing the persons spiritual status and mission. For example, when God established His covenant with Abram, God changed his name from Abram (which means “father” in Hebrew) to Abraham (which means “father of nations” or “chief of the multitude”). By changing his name, God changed Abraham’s mission from a chieftain of a family tribe to the spiritual father of the Jewish nation. God did the same thing with Jacob, in which he was appointed to be the founder of the 12 tribes of Israel, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Petros” to designate his new spiritual role among the apostles, and the Jews would immediately understood it’s significance (this is the primary audience for Matthew). There is a clear exchange of titles between Simon Peter and Jesus. Simon calls Jesus “the Christ” and Jesus calls Simon “the Rock.”

Since Simon’s confession was elicited by Jesus’ question --“but who do you say that I am?” – Jesus is also telling Simon who he is as well. In other words… Since Simon revealed the true character and identity of Jesus (the Messiah and Son of God), Jesus revealed the true character and identity of Simon Peter (the foundation of the apostolic ministry).

The question now becomes why did He change Simon’s name to Rock? One of our confessional documents, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, states: “As to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the Ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation, and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.”

Based on Simon’s confession of faith (and the first of the apostles and their representative to do so), Christ institutes Peter as the chief of the Ministry which is given to all of the apostles generally in Matthew 18. Christ is the capstone of the Church; Peter is the rock of the apostles, and the apostles collectively are the foundation of the Church. Paul himself states this in Ephesians 2:19-20: “The household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

The apostolic ministry lays the foundations for the Church and we who are their descendents in faith build up the Church down successively through the ages culminating in the return of Christ.

What the passage doesn’t establish is that the role given to the Rock is to continue past Peter’s lifetime in a successive papacy as Rome defines it. The apostles were given direct revelation through the Spirit and they wrote this revelation down in the scriptures. Their teachings left to us are the basis for our continued building of the Church.

 

[SIA]

Okay, so, I’ve decided to weigh in on this because I’m a glutton for punishment. Our take on Matt 16:18. Feel free to respond, Rob:

In Jewish tradition, names were very important and functioned as titles that defined a person’s role in society. In fact, in the Jewish Torah, changing a persons name meant changing the persons spiritual status and mission. For example, when God established His covenant with Abram, God changed his name from Abram (which means “father” in Hebrew) to Abraham (which means “father of nations” or “chief of the multitude”). By changing his name, God changed Abraham’s mission from a chieftain of a family tribe to the spiritual father of the Jewish nation. God did the same thing with Jacob, in which he was appointed to be the founder of the 12 tribes of Israel, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Petros” to designate his new spiritual role among the apostles, and the Jews would immediately understood it’s significance (this is the primary audience for Matthew). There is a clear exchange of titles between Simon Peter and Jesus. Simon calls Jesus “the Christ” and Jesus calls Simon “the Rock.”

Since Simon’s confession was elicited by Jesus’ question --“but who do you say that I am?” – Jesus is also telling Simon who he is as well. In other words… Since Simon revealed the true character and identity of Jesus (the Messiah and Son of God), Jesus revealed the true character and identity of Simon Peter (the foundation of the apostolic ministry).

The question now becomes why did He change Simon’s name to Rock? One of our confessional documents, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, states: “As to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the Ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation, and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.”

Based on Simon’s confession of faith (and the first of the apostles and their representative to do so), Christ institutes Peter as the chief of the Ministry which is given to all of the apostles generally in Matthew 18. Christ is the capstone of the Church; Peter is the rock of the apostles, and the apostles collectively are the foundation of the Church. Paul himself states this in Ephesians 2:19-20: “The household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

The apostolic ministry lays the foundations for the Church and we who are their descendents in faith build up the Church down successively through the ages culminating in the return of Christ.

What the passage doesn’t establish is that the role given to the Rock is to continue past Peter’s lifetime in a successive papacy as Rome defines it. The apostles were given direct revelation through the Spirit and they wrote this revelation down in the scriptures. Their teachings left to us are the basis for our continued building of the Church.

Thank you for stating this. I was going to say something quite similar to this before you said this, but your words are very effective in explaining who Peter was, what his role was for the church according to Christ and how the Apostles were given the revelation through the Holy Spirit. This in a very direct application shows exactly how the Scriptures should be the single most powerful authority for our Christian lives today.

 

[fbl9]

Thank you for stating this. I was going to say something quite similar to this before you said this, but your words are very effective in explaining who Peter was, what his role was for the church according to Christ and how the Apostles were given the revelation through the Holy Spirit. This in a very direct application shows exactly how the Scriptures should be the single most powerful authority for our Christian lives today.

and who is to tell us what books are to be regarded as scripture?

 

[SIA]

and who is to tell us what books are to be regarded as scripture?

I do believe that the process in which you are referring to took a very long and painstakingly time. Ultimately the Holy Spirit discerned what Scripture is. After all, don’t we all believe and stake our Christianity upon it being the Word of God?

 

[fbl9]

I do believe that the process in which you are referring to took a very long and painstakingly time. Ultimately the Holy Spirit discerned what Scripture is. After all, don’t we all believe and stake our Christianity upon it being the Word of God?

who did the Holy Spirit speak this knowlegde through?i do not stake my being christian on a book…my christianity is staked on the witness of His followers…early christians did not have a book to stake their belief on,

 

[SIA]

who did the Holy Spirit speak this knowlegde through?i do not stake my being christian on a book…my christianity is staked on the witness of His followers…early christians did not have a book to stake their belief on,

Ahh, but we do. The book tells us of the witness of his followers. How else would you reasonably know about the witness of his followers if it weren’t for the Scriptures?

 

[SIA]

You sound quite anti-Bible.

 

[fbl9]

Ahh, but we do. The book tells us of the witness of his followers. How else would you reasonably know about the witness of his followers if it weren’t for the Scriptures?

Jesus did not pray for the unity of those who beleive cause of a book but rather by the witness of His followers…the church is His witness…try giving us the answer for the first question in my post please…the kjv is not the bible but a mere book.why?cause it is missing too many pages to be complete…a fraction does equal the whole…

 

[TriuneUnity]

Jesus did not pray for the unity of those who beleive cause of a book but rather by the witness of His followers…the church is His witness…try giving us the answer for the first question in my post please…the kjv is not the bible but a mere book.why?cause it is missing too many pages to be complete…a fraction does equal the whole…

Which pages? If you’re referring to the deuterocanonicals…the original KJV had them.

 

[Harland]

SIA…
Here is the King James Version as it relates to Mathew 16:13-19

**13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. **

SIA

Will you please explain Mat. 16:19? You keep arguing the meaning of rock is it Jesus and not Simon Barjona. If Jesus means He (Jesus) is the Rock then what does Jesus mean by giving Simon Barjona the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven? And if Jesus is the rock He is talking about what is the significance of changing Simon Barjona’s name.

 

[jmcrae]

What the passage doesn’t establish is that the role given to the Rock is to continue past Peter’s lifetime in a successive papacy as Rome defines it. The apostles were given direct revelation through the Spirit and they wrote this revelation down in the scriptures. Their teachings left to us are the basis for our continued building of the Church.

I have two comments on this:

If, as you say, the Rock is intended to be the ministry of the proclamation of the Gospel, and not the man himself, then there is even more reason to believe that this is a role that takes successors (apart from the blatant allusion to Isaiah 22, when Christ mentions the keys - keys are never given to just anyone, but only to those we trust with our lives and our property - David gave his keys to a succession of Prime Ministers, some of whom were trustworthy (and got to keep the keys until they died of natural causes) and some of whom were not (and lost both the keys and their lives). It’s difficult to imagine a clearer picture of the Papacy as it has been worked out through history.

Secondly, although it’s true that the Apostles wrote the works that, 300 years later, were eventually included in what we today call “the Bible”, the Apostles themselves did not leave us a Bible - rather, they left us a Church and a teaching ministry. Nobody held a Bible in his hands (as we would understand the concept) until St. Jerome held his own completed work in his hands, some time in the early 400s AD.

The average working person didn’t hold a Bible in his hands until well into the 1700s - prior to that, they were far too expensive for individual people to own.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I have two comments on this:

If, as you say, the Rock is intended to be the ministry of the proclamation of the Gospel, and not the man himself, then there is even more reason to believe that this is a role that takes successors (apart from the blatant allusion to Isaiah 22, when Christ mentions the keys - keys are never given to just anyone, but only to those we trust with our lives and our property - David gave his keys to a succession of Prime Ministers, some of whom were trustworthy (and got to keep the keys until they died of natural causes) and some of whom were not (and lost both the keys and their lives). It’s difficult to imagine a clearer picture of the Papacy as it has been worked out through history.

You’re right; but not about the papacy. The Office of the Ministry that was established in Mt. 16 does not apply to Peter singularly. As I mentioned in the post, all of the things given to Peter were given to the entire apostolic ministry. The apostles left this to the church in the form of their writings. The entire church is successive, not just one man.

Secondly, although it’s true that the Apostles wrote the works that, 300 years later, were eventually included in what we today call “the Bible”, the Apostles themselves did not leave us a Bible - rather, they left us a Church and a teaching ministry. Nobody held a Bible in his hands (as we would understand the concept) until St. Jerome held his own completed work in his hands, some time in the early 400s AD.

That which is written in Scripture is the same body of teaching of the apostles that has been left to the Church, whether it’s preached from the pulpit or is contained within bonded leather covers

 

[RobHom]

Okay, so, I’ve decided to weigh in on this because I’m a glutton for punishment. Our take on Matt 16:18. Feel free to respond, Rob:

Somehow…I knew you would…

What the passage doesn’t establish is that the role given to the Rock is to continue past Peter’s lifetime in a successive papacy as Rome defines it. The apostles were given direct revelation through the Spirit and they wrote this revelation down in the scriptures. Their teachings left to us are the basis for our continued building of the Church.

Thank you for your response. I have to tell you…it was the single most “sensible” response ever given to the issue. But, still, the question remains… If words are used in one language, why do not the translations agree with the “interpretations”?

At any rate, I guess what you have managed to illuminate… clearly… is in reality the principal issue in the disagreement between religions where the Papacy is concerned.

I have to disagree, in a friendly manner…of course and stand firm on the concept of succession…as while it is not specifically addressed by Christ, it has always been a feature or factor of humankind to have “successors” for any position of importance in any organization. Be it a tribe, a family, a village or a business. Anything involving man has always had a “chain of command”, if you want to put it that way… As a Catholic, naturally I accept that the present Pope is the successor to Peter.

And here is some of the basis for my faith in the fact that Peter was the first “Pope”…and that successors were to be appointed:

There was much written by the early fathers of the Church:

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

fisheaters.com/rock.html

There are many things not specifically detailed in the Bible, and to limit “Christianity” to just what is written in the Bible, is to limit not only Christianity…but God as well.

Peace!!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Somehow…I knew you would…

Thank you for your response. I have to tell you…it was the single most “sensible” response ever given to the issue. But, still, the question remains… If words are used in one language, why do not the translations agree with the “interpretations”?

Thanks Rob!

Well, all of the English Bibles translate it accurately. The reason for the different interpretations is over reaction to the Roman Catholic interpretation.

At any rate, I guess what you have managed to illuminate… clearly… is in reality the principal issue in the disagreement between religions where the Papacy is concerned.

I have to disagree, in a friendly manner…of course and stand firm on the concept of succession…as while it is not specifically addressed by Christ

That’s a serious problem though. If it isn’t addressed by Christ, or any of the apostles in their various epistles how can we assume it’s not a human invention of dogma? Why no mention of this particular succession of Peter’s role as foundation of the apostles by Paul, John, or Peter himself? Peter himself writes as if he is on equal footing with the other ministers. Those church fathers who mention the preeminence of the bishop of Rome in Christendom could not have possibly dreamed of the claims that would be made by Vatican I.

And here is some of the basis for my faith in the fact that Peter was the first “Pope”…and that successors were to be appointed:

As a bishopric, Peter did have a successor and I can accept that the concept of a bishop of Rome is not unbiblical or non-apostolic. Just not the dogmatic pronouncements by Rome of what that entails.