Here are two articles for your interest. The first one quotes current protestant scholars who concede that Peter himself is the rock on which Christ would build his Church. The second article explains the semantic basis for Christ proclaiming that Peter himself is the rock.This is one of the many interpretations. Are we to accept that Douay Rheims interpretation is protected from error? If so, why?
Matthew Henry says:
First, Some by this rock understand Peter himself as an apostle, the chief, though not the prince, of the twelve, senior among them, but not superior over them.
Secondly, Others, by this rock, understand Christ; “Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church.”
Thirdly, Others by this rock understand this confession which Peter made of Christ, and this comes all to one with understanding it of Christ himself.
PETER IS THE ROCK
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.
Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.aspMore recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.
I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.aspNo two ways about it. Peter is the rock.
Perfect.Always good advice. My wife and I are doing a lot of this as of late.
Unless Christ is risen your faith does not save.Where did Jesus say this?
I suppose I do not understand your response.Unless Christ is risen your faith does not save.
He appeared to the twelve after His ressurection.
After consideration of your statements, I would say that some things do not need to be interpreted to be known.You see, Paul told Timothy to remember and hold fast to what he had taught him when they were together face to face - he did not and could not restate it all in the letters themselves.
I think you do!I suppose I do not understand your response.
I am quite sure I do not. You vastly overestimate my intelligence.I think you do!
Ahah! Are we backpeddelling are we?After consideration of your statements, I would say that some things do not need to be interpreted to be known.
I am reminded of a story by Francis Schaeffer. He went on a beautiful mediterannian cruise with his wife. There, one evening, he was debating with an avowed atheist who, consistant to his beliefs, denied that he was certain anything existed. After the end of the debate, when this person was leaving, Schaeffer asked him one last question… “As you are with your wife tonight, holding her beneath the stars, do you know that she exists?” And his tear-filled answer, “No, I do not know that she exists.”
In my protests I must make sure not to protest everything. But life is very confusing right now.
Constantly. I am very confused about a great many things. Hence why I ask so many questions.Ahah! Are we backpeddelling are we?
Have you read all the articles referenced there? If you have, then we’ll know that at least you have read all the evidence there and found it ‘wanting’ and that will make it much easier for us to discuss things. We won’t be trying to make a point to you that you’ve already decided ‘won’t cut it’.
Say no more? Oh well here we go now that you are listening.After consideration of your statements, I would say that some things do not need to be interpreted to be known.
I am reminded of a story by Francis Schaeffer. He went on a beautiful mediterannian cruise with his wife. There, one evening, he was debating with an avowed atheist who, consistant to his beliefs, denied that he was certain anything existed. After the end of the debate, when this person was leaving, Schaeffer asked him one last question… “As you are with your wife tonight, holding her beneath the stars, do you know that she exists?” And his tear-filled answer, “No, I do not know that she exists.”
In my protests I must make sure not to protest everything. But life is very confusing right now.
I am not nor will I ever be an atheist.Say no more? Oh well here we go now that you are listening.
Now there is even a "dial-a-prayer for atheists. You call a number and nobody answers.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14;1
How so are you confused?
Yes.Have you read all the articles referenced there?
I don’t think the arguments there for a Pope cut it at all, partially for reasons listed in this thread.We won’t be trying to make a point to you that you’ve already decided ‘won’t cut it’.
That was a mean thing for Schaeffer to say. My husband would have punched his lights out or pushed him overboard.After consideration of your statements, I would say that some things do not need to be interpreted to be known.
I am reminded of a story by Francis Schaeffer. He went on a beautiful mediterannian cruise with his wife. There, one evening, he was debating with an avowed atheist who, consistant to his beliefs, denied that he was certain anything existed. After the end of the debate, when this person was leaving, Schaeffer asked him one last question… “As you are with your wife tonight, holding her beneath the stars, do you know that she exists?” And his tear-filled answer, “No, I do not know that she exists.”
In my protests I must make sure not to protest everything. But life is very confusing right now.
That would be a mean thing for your husband to do.That was a mean thing for Schaeffer to say. My husband would have punched his lights out or pushed him overboard.
Now you are throwing my christian charity in my face but you don’t believe Jesus.Constantly. I am very confused about a great many things. Hence why I ask so many questions.
So, do you find it within the realm of Christian Charity to gloat over this fact, or are you just pointing out something that you were before unable to understand?
And it wasn’t mean what schaeefeer did?That would be a mean thing for your husband to do.
Let’s seeeeeeeI am not nor will I ever be an atheist.
I think we are just not understanding each other at all.
To dessert. This is in this thread. And, if you follow this thread, reading all the posts, you will find that this position is not inconsistent with anything else I have defended.To answer for myself: no. And this I say as a Protestant.
I don’t make things up in my basement without letting others in the Body of Christ challenge me on them.
Concerning predestination, I have the authority of Augustine and Aquinas, among many others. These may not tell me “yes predestination”, or “no predestination” (or the much more reasonable “this much predestination”). But they do give me good corporate reasons for accepting what I do.
In Christianity, Protestant or Catholic, there can be no truly private interpretation. Otherwise, every person is a Church unto himself, and atheists, who interpret the Scriptures in a way very distinct from Protestants and Catholics, are just as much a part of the Bodies of Christ as anyone else.
Every group has its tradition. And though I reject the Catholic Church, I do accept that it is absolutely correct in a great many (maybe even most) things.
See above.2.I have not read any affirmation that you do believe in Jesus or the bible or anyone but point me to the post if I am wrong or anyone else.
I don’t believe in anything “in order not to be an atheist.” Actually, I could be a pantheist without being an atheist, or an agnostic without being an atheist.
- In order to not be an atheist, what do you believe in?
Yes.
- Do you think you are really talking to anyone?
Okay.
- I won’t say anymore ither.