The historicity of the Church

[benhur]

Because he did not;

How do you know Jesus did not point to himself ? I will admit kepha could have been used twice but it is speculation also.

He said

Again speculation.

No the Greek is not wrong. However, your interpretation differs from mine.

Very good.

What did Jesus leave us with to resolve these types of doctrinal disputes?

Many things and both sides must beware of conflict of interests.

Now you are changing my words. LOL…OK. However the ship is referring to the boat; there is just one boat being referenced - right?

Is there ?

 

[joe371]

How do you know Jesus did not point to himself ? I will admit kepha could have been used twice but it is speculation also. Again speculation.
Very good.Many things and both sides must beware of conflict of interests.
Is there ?

Simon answered Jesus’ question - “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” to which Jesus said: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven". Because of this he renames him rock and proceeds to say: and on this rock (the same rock) I will build my church.

Jesus said to Peter, “Blessed are you. . . . And so I say to you, you are Peter. . . . I will give to you the keys to the kingdom. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Jesus uses the word you seven times in just three verses. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, “But I will build my Church upon me.” The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter. Plus, it would be unnecessary for Jesus to claim the obvious which is that He is the Divine rock/cornerstone upon which His church is built. He is also King who holds the divine keys; nevertheless he gave a set of key, metaphorically speaking, to His steward in His absence, as was the case with the kings in the OT.

Regarding the Petros/Petra dilemma: As everyone knows Matthew was translated into Greek and petra would have been used for rock. However, petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was employed. Do we at least agree on that?

Do you agree with the thumbnail below?

 

[joe371]

benhur Augustine was referring specifically to Matt 16:18 and Jesus being the rock .

Rightfully so!

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.” (Augustine, Christian Combat).

" But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly." --St. Augustine, Psalmus Contra Pertem Donati.

 

[joe371]

How do you know Jesus did not point to himself ? I will admit kepha could have been used twice but it is speculation also. Again speculation.
Very good.Many things and both sides must beware of conflict of interests.
Is there ?

You admit that Jesus could have said to Simon - you are kepha and on this kepha?

Well, if Jesus did not establish His church, as per Matthew 16, where he says - I will build my church - and then send the Holy Spirit to His church on Pentecost to be the invisible and ineffable guiding means of preserving doctrinal truth, so that disputes can be resolved, then the Catholic Church could be wrong and you could be right. However, if this is the case, then there is no guarantee that the bible is the infallible word of God. After all if the CC due to the lack of guidance on God’s part, got it wrong about certain teachings, then certainly they could have included books in your bible that were not from God - right?

 

[joe371]

joe371;11997685:

Augustine was referring specifically to Matt 16:18 and Jesus being the rock .

Augustine also referred to peter as the rock of Matthew 16. Both are true! Jesus is the invisible Rock and King, and Peter is the visible rock, and steward.

Could you give me a verse-by-verse exposition as to how you arrive at Jesus being the rock in Matthew 16?

 

[joe371]

How do you know Jesus did not point to himself ?

When you and I examine the text grammatically—“You are Peter, and on this rock”—don’t we both agree that “this rock” must refer to the closest noun. To say “this rock” refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence. Ask any English teacher if you doubt me; after all I hated English class. LOL…

 

[Cube2]

The first council was in Acts 15. Are suggesting the the CC ecumenical councils were unnecessary, or do you are that they were guided by God to quash horrible heresies?
If none of the Protestant churches existed until 1500 years after Jesus walked the earth then those churches are not the churches of Pentecost. Can you give me one reason to belong to one of them, in light of the fact that you keep suggesting that late dates invalidate Catholic doctrines?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes English makes it challenging. Greek solves it . Some truths are like gold and require much digging, but the seeker shall find. Petros is not a rock, it is a stone.

Not in Koine Greek. This may have been true in the more distant past Greek, in some poetic writings only, but this is not true in the Greek that was used for scripture. There is no distinction.

The Greek language DID have a word that meant “small stone” – lithos. Although even THAT word had a range of meanings.

You build on Petra, which is bigger.

Nope. Your argument is built on a logical fallacy.

What subject is bigger than Peter in the rock discourse ? I believe there are three subjects and one of them is Peter, the other the Father and His revelation about the third subject , Jesus is the Christ.

You believe this simply because you need to inject your own beliefs into the text. These subjects are not in the text. You are doing eisegesis.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

In a narrow context yes, but you miss the broader picture.The Jews wanting a king was a carnal idea and God was not happy with being ousted as their theocratic ruler. That God allowed their wish does not hide the spiritual error on Israel’s part. That the Lord uses what he allows also does not hide His perfect will.

You’re ignoring all the scriptures that tell us that the Davidic Kingdom was a precursor and foreshadow of the Heavenly Kingdom. God makes good from evil. The evil was the move from a theocracy to a kingdom. The good that God made out of it was a perpetual kingdom, the Davidic Kingdom, that would always be led by Christ. And the fact of history that you’re ignoring is that Jesus instituted an “over the house” OFFICE, just as in the Davidic Kingdom.

You want to rebel against the “over the house” that Jesus established. Fine.
But, just as Korah before you, you do so at your own peril.

We believe the Holy Spirit is His primary Vicar on Earth, in the Lord’s “absence”.

And we see in Acts 15, for example, just HOW the Holy Spirit guides … through the Prime Minister.
Ac 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Notice how St. Peter speaks for the Holy Spirit, or, better, how the Holy Spirit speaks THROUGH St. Peter!!

We see in many other places how the Holy Spirit uses the Apostles in general, and St. Peter as the chief Apostle in particular, to convey His message, just as He does today through the pope AND councils:

Ac 1:2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

FathersKnowBest;11997216:

Except for one thing, the New Kingdom is not fully established here on Earth yet.

The promise was that the Davidic Kingdom would always be here.

For now, we are battling and have no palace (needing a ruling prime minister). It is not quite apples to apples, the Davidic kingdom and the Church age, yet

You’re trying to use human reasoning to show that, in you opinion, we don’t “need” a prime minister. Even though your reasoning is quite erroneous (I contend that we need a prime minister more than ever when the King is not physically present – it has NOTHING to do with a palace of any sort), I think that the fact that Jesus set St. Peter up AS the prime minister says far more about this.

 

[spina1953]

In most languages grammar is important in conveying the intended meaning the writer wants the reader to know and understand. In many languages words ending in a are not used with words ending in o and words ending in o are not used with words ending in a. But this does not change the intended meaning of the sentence, so Kepha and kephos can mean the same thing it would make no sense at all to say one is a rock and then turn around and say that one is a pebble, which does make ay sense and vey doubtful that the writer wanted the reader to think first one is rock then pebble. This argument that somehow because in the Greek words that are the same but ending in either o or a are different meanings is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[spina1953]

I would like out that in Acts Chpt. 15, The Council of Jerusalem that Luke was conveying why the council was called in the first place. The converted Pharisees had come down to Antioch from Judea and had begun teaching that “Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic practice you cannot be saved.” This created dissention and controversy between them and Paul and Barnabas and they decided that they needed to go to Jerusalem and see he Apostles to resolve the question.
After they told the Apostles what was going on and that these converted Pharisees are demanding that Gentiles be circumcised and be told to keep the Mosaic law. The Apostles and presbyters accordingly convened a council to look into the matter. After a lot of discussion It was Peter who stood up and decided that the converted Pharisees were in the wrong and was not the teaching of Jesus.

James spoke about an entirely different issue at the council which had nothing to do with what the converted Pharisees were demanding. James as more concerned wit converted Gentiles being once pagans that they may misunderstand and think it alright to eat meat offered to idols and wanted to make sure that they understood that the followers of Jesus did not do that.

What Luke was conveying to the reader that the followers of Jesus were breaking with Jewish customs and laws and practices because they were now following the teachings of Christ and not Mosaic laws. Peter was speaking for the whole of the Church while James was speaking about concerned customs that pagans used.
.

 

[ffg]

Interesting last couple of pages there on the evaluating Peter, Rock, pebbles.

Should we not look at Jesus’ tribe as an example or hint about earth after Jesus?

Did Jesus name an equal while leading the tribe? (in unison - of course not -)

Then it shouldn’t be far fetched for him to name a successor to lead His Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Absurd, that divinity calls itself “rock” ? Is that a 500 year old man made contention, never seen before, divinity calling itself rock ?

U-huh and the divinity has also called others the Rock. So yes, a 500 year old man-made invention that ONLY God calls himself the rock and makes no exceptions elsewhere.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes English makes it challenging. Greek solves it . Some truths are like gold and require much digging, but the seeker shall find. Petros is not a rock, it is a stone. You build on Petra, which is bigger. What subject is bigger than Peter in the rock discourse ? I believe there are three subjects and one of them is Peter, the other the Father and His revelation about the third subject , Jesus is the Christ. Petra would refer to the most previous subject/thought and that is not Peter , but the other two I mentioned. Peter never said the church was built on Him but did say jesus is the stone and a rock and we too are living stones forming the spiritual house.He never said he had authority over other elders but considered himself a fellow elder…Even Augustine says ,“For seeing that Christ is the rock(petra)”…but I believe he knew some Greek.

With all due respect,but why are you trying to re-write history and act as though your old burnt-out argument has never been heard before or debunked? That is one the issues I have noticed many Protestants struggle with: HISTORICAL FACTS!

You cannot change history in order to make others believe you right and everyone else has been wrong until you appeared. Seriously?

You remind me of salmon swimming upstream.

 

[benhur]

Simon answered Jesus’ question - “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” to which Jesus said: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven". Because of this he renames him rock and proceeds to say: and on this rock (the same rock) I will build my church.

Jesus said to Peter, “Blessed are you. . . . And so I say to you, you are Peter. . . . I will give to you the keys to the kingdom. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Jesus uses the word you seven times in just three verses. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, “But I will build my Church upon me.” The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter. Plus, it would be unnecessary for Jesus to claim the obvious which is that He is the Divine rock/cornerstone upon which His church is built. He is also King who holds the divine keys; nevertheless he gave a set of key, metaphorically speaking, gto His steward in His absence, as was the case with the kings in the OT.

Regarding the Petros/Petra dilemma: As everyone knows Matthew was translated into Greek and petra would have been used for rock. However, petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was employed. Do we at least agree on that?

Do you agree with the thumbnail below?

willtry to respond better later but on the last why is it not ok to call peter by feminine rock but ok for Jesus to be feminine rock elsewhere ?

 

[benhur]

benhur;11997794:

Augustine also referred to peter as the rock of Matthew 16. Both are true! Jesus is the invisible Rock and King, and Peter is the visible rock, and steward.

Could you give me a verse-by-verse exposition as to how you arrive at Jesus being the rock in Matthew 16?

Are you considering augustine’s retractions, one of which is calling peter rock ?

 

[benhur]

When you and I examine the text grammatically—“You are Peter, and on this rock”—don’t we both agree that “this rock” must refer to the closest noun. To say “this rock” refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence. Ask any English teacher if you doubt me; after all I hated English class. LOL…

Some fathers agree with you but will go on to say it is even more than just peter keeping in context what just transpired with peter. The “this” is just not peter. It is the peter who just confessed Christ as messiah per divine revelation. Peter represents the expression of God’s gift of faith that Christ is Messiah unto salvation that the gates of hell can not stop. Again I know what you mean by closest noun to the “this”. However, what just occurred in the previous discourse/confession/revelation is much bigger than simon the man,and is what made him peter,rock/stone the apostle. What is more important, that peter is stone or rock, or how he got to be that way ? What is more important, his jurisdiction or his proclamation ? Others have said his jurisdiction was in the proclaiming, not in being over the other apostles (for all would proclaim).
All this is wonderfully illustrated by the use of the larger Petra’s and the smaller petros for peter yet of the same stock and one on top off or from the other.

 

[benhur]

Not in Koine Greek. This may have been true in the more distant past Greek, in some poetic writings only, but this is not true in the Greek that was used for scripture. There is no distinction.

The Greek language DID have a word that meant “small stone” – lithos. Although even THAT word had a range of meanings.

Nope. Your argument is built on a logical fallacy.

You believe this simply because you need to inject your own beliefs into the text. These subjects are not in the text. You are doing eisegesis.

What, these subjects (Christ the messiah, the father in heaven)e not in the discourse ?

 

[benhur]

With all due respect,but why are you trying to re-write history and act as though your old burnt-out argument has never been heard before or debunked? That is one the issues I have noticed many Protestants struggle with: HISTORICAL FACTS!

You cannot change history in order to make others believe you right and everyone else has been wrong until you appeared. Seriously?

You remind me of salmon swimming upstream.

That is right, it ain’t easy to lay seeds of life,just as in digging for gold.