po18guy
Well-known member
Slightly obscure - even if a local Renaissance Faire is occurring as we speak.
- Status
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Since it’s against forum rules to try to “expound” why “the Holy Mother Church is ‘wrong,’” having been raised Catholic, I’m merely going to share what I’ve read elsewhere from Protestants from “Scripture alone.”
‘this rock’ (Greek: ‘houtos petra’ [NASB] / ‘tautē petra’ [KJV] – ‘refers to a subject immediately preceding the one just named; it refers to the leading subject of a sentence although in a position more remote’). In other words, the Greek word ‘this’ does not refer to the ‘previous noun,’ but rather the ‘previous subject’ that ‘immediately precedes the noun.’ In Matthew 16:18, ‘this rock’ refers back to the ‘subject’ in v.17 – God ‘revealing’ to Peter ‘Who’ Jesus was (ie: the ‘words’ Peter spoke, not Peter himself.) In Matthew 7:21-28, ‘these words’ (‘houtos’) in vv.24 & 26 don’t refer back to the preceding noun (‘everyone’), nor does ‘these words’ (‘houtos’) in v.28 refer back to ‘Jesus,’ but the subject ‘immediately preceding’ them – the ‘words’ of Jesus (vv.21-23,25,27). Therefore, the foundation ‘rock’ (‘petra’ ) are Jesus’ words (v.24-25), not Jesus Himself. In Matthew 21:42-44, ‘this stone’ (Greek: ‘houtos lithos’) refers back to the ‘stone’ (‘lithos’) in v.42, not ‘he’ in v.44.
When the Old Testament was translated into the Greek Septuagint, in Numbers 20:8-10, ‘this rock’ (Hebrew: ‘zeh’ – ‘this other’ / ‘cela
’- ‘crag, cliff, rock’), was translated (‘tautē petra’), & ‘this rock’ refers back to the ‘rock’ in v.8, not ‘you rebels’ in v.10 or ‘rod’ in v.9. Likewise, in Judges 6:19-20, ‘this rock’ (Hebrew: ‘hallaz’ – ‘this one, yonder; other side / ‘cela’ – ‘crag, cliff, rock’) when translated into the Greek Septuagint (‘ekeinos’ – ‘that, the more remote subject’ / ‘petra’ – ‘rock’). So, ‘this rock’ in v.20 refers back to the ‘rock’ (‘petra’) ‘under the oak’ in v.19, not ‘the angel of God’ or ‘the meat & unleavened bread’ in v.20.‘Rock’ (‘petra’) refers to more than just the feminine tense of ‘Peter’ or ‘stone’ (‘Petros’), which is masculine tense. ‘Rock’ (‘petra’) refers to an immovable ‘boulder-like’ rock, crag, or cliff. Therefore, the ‘words,’ which God Himself, ‘reveals’ to the Church ‘Who’ Jesus is (‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’)(Matthew 16:16-17) is the immovable ‘rock’ (‘petra’) that Christ built His Church on (v.18).
‘If’ Peter was the ‘petra,’ because Jesus renamed Simon – ‘Cephas’ – then Jesus could have simply said to Peter “and you are Peter (‘Petros’) & upon this rock (‘Cephas’) I will build My church,” rather than saying “upon this ‘petra’.”
Again, not trying to challenge or prove anyone “wrong.” Just responding to your “challenge,” & sharing what I’ve read on this subject from non-Catholics. Blessings!
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Again, I’m going to merely share with you what I’ve heard from non-Catholics, in response to your “challenge,” but I am not challenging any official church teaching or belief. Only in response to your question:
Immediately after Jesus gives Peter the keys, Jesus explains to Peter what the purpose of the keys are for: to bind & loose (Matthew 16:19). Two chapters later, Jesus also gives the rest of the church this same ability to “bind & loose” too (Matthew 18:18). Based on the function of the keys, it seems the rest of the church had possession of the keys too, not just Peter. Otherwise, they would not be able to bind & loose without them. Jesus not mentioning the church having the keys too, doesn’t seem to be necessary since He already explained just two chapters earlier the purpose of the keys are to bind & loose.
This is similar to Jesus saying the Holy Spirit is “sent” AND “proceeded” by the Father, but in another verse He says the HS is “sent” by the Son but not “proceeded” by the Son too. The omission of “the Son” too, doesn’t mean the HS wasn’t “proceeded” by the Son as well, just as the omission of the “keys” doesn’t mean the rest of the church didn’t possess them too. Jesus even said that He had to leave before the Holy Spirit (“the Helper”) could come. Obviously, this means the HS was “proceeded” by the Son once He returned to glory in Heaven. This same reasoning could argue the rest of the church needed to have the keys in order to bind & loose, not just Peter.
Again, just sharing & answering you, not challenging anything. Pace!
Last edited:
S
SetInMotion
Guest
Would you say the following verses add any additional insight?
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
S
speculator
Guest
I agree that Peter’s , and the other apostles’, statement was happily from God.
It was also a reply to Jesus’ question about what the apostles said (around) about Jesus: “you whom do you say I am?”.
This (public) declaration had been made possible through the words and deeds of Jesus.
So Petra is a declaration from God.
What matters is not Peter, or Jesus or his words but God.
When I reach God I find peace.
It was also a reply to Jesus’ question about what the apostles said (around) about Jesus: “you whom do you say I am?”.
This (public) declaration had been made possible through the words and deeds of Jesus.
So Petra is a declaration from God.
What matters is not Peter, or Jesus or his words but God.
When I reach God I find peace.
S
speculator
Guest
Mt 7:24
Jesus is not instructing house builders
nor is he saying to laymen that if you build a house on a rock it wil be o.k, (I.e. try and build on the rock in the middle of a river and see)
He says that if you follow his instructions from God you will build on God and God’s instructions.
Jesus is not instructing house builders
nor is he saying to laymen that if you build a house on a rock it wil be o.k, (I.e. try and build on the rock in the middle of a river and see)
He says that if you follow his instructions from God you will build on God and God’s instructions.
B
billsherman
Guest
My comment was entirely about Jesus being Jewish, which he undeniably was. I wrote nothing about him founding a Church at all.
B
BT3241
Guest
One of the problems here is you have Peter without the holy spirit and then later Peter full of the holy spirit everyone always relates to the earlier Peter who did not have the holy spirit guiding him.Peter should be looked at after he recieved the holy spirit . He gets a bad rap because people only want to see him as he was at the beginning. Once you go to the act’s you see a different Peter and his letters speak for themself. It is said it’s possible Luke’s gospel is really From Peter who Luke was with as we see in acts.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Although the Greek word “these” refers back a previous subject which is “more remote” which would be Jesus’ words in vv. 21-23, rather than to the “rock” which succeeds the passage, being obedient to what Jesus says is like the analogy of building a house upon a rock (petra), which according the Greek in Matthew 16:18 would be the “more remote” subject of Peter’s words revealed to him by God, Who Jesus is. At least, that is one view. Good insight, if that is where you were going.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Yes, Isaiah chapter 22. “And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.” (Isaiah 22:22–23, D-R)
In Matthew 16 it is clear that Jesus was only addressing Peter in reference to the keys.
Being that the Church is apostolic, yes, binding and loosing is promised to the other apostles and their successors but the power of binding and loosing that was conferred on Saint Peter excelled that granted to the other apostles. Peter was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles while the others received no power over each other, much less over Saint Peter. The other apostles only had the power to bind and loose because of their union to Saint Peter who alone was given the keys.
This is made clear when Jesus said Peter would be the rock He would build His Church upon. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and He used the Aramaic word for rock in Matthew 16 which is “Cephas" and also again in John 1:42. Peter again is called Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15.
What I find interesting is your using Matthew 18 since that chapter clearly shows the need for the visible Church and the instructions and power given to the apostles to build the visible Church.
Last edited:
S
SaberBob
Guest
Exuse my typos as I’m doing this reply with a cheap smartphone. 1st, there is in Koine NO distinction between. Petros and petras–both mean big immovable rock; the “pebbles” distinction is in Attic Greek of 3-4 centuries earlier. 2nd Kephas/Cephas in Aramaic means the exact same thing as petra. 3rd, Evna is the Aramaic for pebble, NEVER used.for Simon bar Jonah. 4th, the demonstrative pronoun for “this (very)” is used with “Kai” for 'and" which.MUST refer to the previous noun which is Simon Peter
S
SetInMotion
Guest
After having considered Jesus’ words a little further in Matthew in a previous context, would you also think that Peter’s words would be of any use in this endeavor to understand, as he understood the word in his later use in his epistle?:
Peter’s testimony on “Rock” [Petra]:
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock G4073 of offence, even to them which stumble at the word G3056 , being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 1 Peter 2:8
1Pe 2:8 και λιθος προσκομματος και πετρα G4073 σκανδαλου οι προσκοπτουσιν τω λογω G3056 απειθουντες εις ο και ετεθησαν
Last edited:
S
SetInMotion
Guest
Well, we are just considering, all angles on it, and so, after looking at Jesus’ words further in Matthew, and also what Peter himself wrote using the word, and who it was identified with, perhaps we should widen the scope beyond Peter, to also include Paul, as he was pretty well learned in scripture, and had intimate knowledge and insight given from Christ Jesus Himself on several occasions, and so I would think the words of the Holy Apostles “Peter & Paul” would carry some weight in the matter, beyond even that of Jesus’ already given statements, what do you think of the following in relation to the topic:
Paul speaking, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock G4073 that followed them: and that Rock G4073 was Christ G5547 .
1Co 10:4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας G4073 η δε πετρα G4073 ην ο χριστος G5547
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock G4073 of offence: and whosoever believeth on him G846 shall not be ashamed.
Rom 9:33 καθως γεγραπται ιδου τιθημι εν σιων λιθον προσκομματος και πετραν G4073 σκανδαλου και πας ο πιστευων επ αυτω G846 ου καταισχυνθησεται
Paul, citing, Isaiah 8:14
Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence …
Which is in the context of “Immanuel”, “God with us”:
Isa 8:8 … O Immanuel.
Isa 8:10 … for God is with us.
and the children, that God the Father would give to the Son, being the disciples as per Hebrews 2:9-13, Isaiah 8:8-20; see also, John 13:33.
Last edited:
S
SetInMotion
Guest
Even, the esteemed Dr. of the Church, Luke, wrote similarly to Matthew:
Luk 6:47 Whosoever cometh to me , and heareth my sayings , and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
Luk 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: G4073 and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock G4073.
Luk 6:48 ομοιος εστιν ανθρωπω οικοδομουντι οικιαν ος εσκαψεν και εβαθυνεν και εθηκεν θεμελιον επι την πετραν G4073 πλημμυρας δε γενομενης προσερρηξεν ο ποταμος τη οικια εκεινη και ουκ ισχυσεν σαλευσαι αυτην τεθεμελιωτο γαρ επι την πετραν G4073
S
SaberBob
Guest
The previous subject IS the previous noun, which is Peter. We have the same rule in English as in “I have a car and a truck, it is red”. The subject is the preceding noun, the truck, the truck being the “it” declared red.
G
GladTidings
Guest
Where does it say that? That statement sounds like something I would hear on PBS.
In Matthew 16:17, Jesus said in reply to Peter, “Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
And who was speaking for the disciples? Peter. Who did Jesus give the keys to? Peter.
Seven times within Matthew 16:17 to 19, Jesus says the word, you, and who to whom is he speaking?
S
SaberBob
Guest
W F Albright, per Scott Hahn, one of the 20th Century’s Evangelical exegetes, declared the Catholic interpretation of Mt 16:18 the ONLY viable one; saying “it” is Peter’s faith is pure confessionional bias; likewise Rudolf Bultman gave hostile confirmation of the Catholic position by declaring the passage not authentic because of it’s clear Petrine ecclesiology. Even Evangelical theologian Donald Carson says the Aramaic original was clearly Jesus using a pun to reinforce Peter’s authority over the apostles, especially with “the keys” in verse 19, referring to Eliakim’s viziership in Is 22
M
Mishakel
Guest
As a Protestant, I’m fully prepared to give you the reasons as to why the Protestant view is different, so long as we all agree not to throw around simplistic phrases such as (I’m right and you’re wrong)
I will also preface this by saying as a practicing Catholic you are bound by what your Church deems dogmatic. Also, there’s very very few scriptures Catholicism makes dogmatic interpretations on.
There’s too much information to put into one post. I wholeheartedly believe it’s ok to use one verse or two when memorizing “memorable” scripture, like John 3:16 etc…
I do not think it’s very prudent to build an entire theological decision on one or two verses.
Contrary to your opening statement, Christ didn’t just ask the disciples out of the blue one day who did they say he is. Context is important. In chapter 15 Christ works a lot of miracles witnessed by thousands of people including the disciples. Chapter 16 starts with the Pharisees and Sadducees asking Christ to show them a sign from Heaven. They’re not asking this out of the blue either. They’ve asking this as proof Christ is the Messiah. Christ denies them a sign because he’s constantly performing miracles yet they still don’t believe. This is the context. Christ then warned his disciples about the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples do not understand Christ is talking about their teachings, not actually bread. (Side note this is further proof that the last super was meant to be symbolic and not literally flesh).
This is when he asked who do people say I am and followed up asking who do they say he is. When Peter confesses he is the Christ, the rock to which the church is to be built on is indeed that faith. Peter himself claims all believers are lively stones which make up the church that belongs to Christ. It’s not surprising Catholicism makes no such dogmatic decree concerning that scripture.
Furthermore, the Church didn’t officially begin until the day of Pentecost. Another important piece to this entire puzzle is Christ tells all the disciples they would receive power from the Holy Spirit. If you believe Peter started the Church of Christ in chapter 16 it doesn’t fit since the Church started at Pentecost. All 12 disciples were given the same powers regarding binding and loosening laws or dogmas concerning Christianity, ie circumcision etc… there’s more but I’m probably out of space
I will also preface this by saying as a practicing Catholic you are bound by what your Church deems dogmatic. Also, there’s very very few scriptures Catholicism makes dogmatic interpretations on.
There’s too much information to put into one post. I wholeheartedly believe it’s ok to use one verse or two when memorizing “memorable” scripture, like John 3:16 etc…
I do not think it’s very prudent to build an entire theological decision on one or two verses.
Contrary to your opening statement, Christ didn’t just ask the disciples out of the blue one day who did they say he is. Context is important. In chapter 15 Christ works a lot of miracles witnessed by thousands of people including the disciples. Chapter 16 starts with the Pharisees and Sadducees asking Christ to show them a sign from Heaven. They’re not asking this out of the blue either. They’ve asking this as proof Christ is the Messiah. Christ denies them a sign because he’s constantly performing miracles yet they still don’t believe. This is the context. Christ then warned his disciples about the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples do not understand Christ is talking about their teachings, not actually bread. (Side note this is further proof that the last super was meant to be symbolic and not literally flesh).
This is when he asked who do people say I am and followed up asking who do they say he is. When Peter confesses he is the Christ, the rock to which the church is to be built on is indeed that faith. Peter himself claims all believers are lively stones which make up the church that belongs to Christ. It’s not surprising Catholicism makes no such dogmatic decree concerning that scripture.
Furthermore, the Church didn’t officially begin until the day of Pentecost. Another important piece to this entire puzzle is Christ tells all the disciples they would receive power from the Holy Spirit. If you believe Peter started the Church of Christ in chapter 16 it doesn’t fit since the Church started at Pentecost. All 12 disciples were given the same powers regarding binding and loosening laws or dogmas concerning Christianity, ie circumcision etc… there’s more but I’m probably out of space
S
SetInMotion
Guest
I think this the best approach, to read in whole context, and not isolation:
Context of Matthew 16:19, 18:18
In Matthew 16 , let us ask, “Who is Jeus speaking to?”
The Holy Scriptures reveals that after speaking to the “Pharisees also with the Sadducees” [vs. 1-4] , Jesus then “left them … and departed” [vs. 4] and went to the “other side” with His disciples [“them”; vs. 5] and then begins to speak to them all [“the disciples”; vs. 6] .
Jesus warns the disciples against the corrupt doctrines, practices, teachings and lifestyles which is/was the “leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” [vs. 6] . The disciples misinterpret what Jesus then said about the “leaven” , and they think He is speaking about “bread” [vs. 7], and so Jesus corrects their understanding by relating to them of the miracles that they had witnessed in the feeding of the multitudes [vs. 8-11] , and that He was not speaking to them of physical “bread” [vs. 11] . The disciples finally see that the “leaven” that He spoke about was referencing, in Truth, the “doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees” [vs. 12] .
We are warned to beware of “leaven” of “Pharisees and Sadducees” [the self-proclaimed religious teachers, instructors and ‘doctors’ of the law] and false “doctrines”, setting the stage for what Jesus says next to the disciples [vs. 13-20]. We must be extra careful here.
Jesus now then comes “into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi” with the disciples in tow [vs. 13] where He [Jesus] “asked his disciples” a question [“Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”]. The question was not merely addressed to “Simon Barjona”, for they all answer [“they said”; vs. 14] , giving various responses [“John the Baptist … Elias … Jeremias … one of the prophets”] , and so, again, a further question was asked to “them” [vs. 15] [“But whom say ye that I am?”] . Notice the contrasted questions to them all [basically], “Who do they/others say I am?” and “Who do you [disciples] say I am?”
Peter answers, by inspiration of God, with, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [vs. 16]
This is the sought after answer to the directed question to all of the Disciples that Jesus was looking for. The entire conversation and questioning at this point is about “Who is the Son of Man?” , which answer is Christ Jesus [the Rock, chief and precious cornerstone, a stone, a living stone, a tried stone, a stone of stumbling, head of the corner, sure foundation, which word ‘petra’; is used in Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8 referring to Jesus; and is never used of Peter anywhere in scripture] in stating, “that He was Jesus the Christ”; vs. 20 .
Christ Jesus acknowledges the statement that, He [Jesus] is the Christ, and that such answer was not from Simon “Peter” Barjona [“flesh and blood”; [humanity] vs. 17] , though blessed to received such, but rather it was revealed from God the Father [“My Father”; vs. 17].
Last edited:
- Status