Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mrsdizzyd said:
However, that salvation, should it occur, would be attained through extraordinary means
Click to expand...
You’ll have to expound on this thought. Jesus said Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.

Paul, again, said All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for that the man of God may be complete

I’ve already pointed out where Paul and others considered their own writings scripture.

We both should agree that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. It seems from the Catholic side this is viewed as less significant. I don’t wish to derail the topic of the thread any further though but I’d be happy to pm a discussion 🙂
 
1st 99.9 percent of NT scholars agree Jesus spoke Aramaic to the disciples and not Koine. Aramaic does not have the same genders as Koine to confuse things. Since Paul calls Peter Cephas, we can be sure Jesus did also. Hence, in Aramaic it would have been a declarative wordplay, “you are Cephas and on Cephas I will build…” It works out the same in French, "you are Pierre and on Pierre I will build…*
 
2nd, verse 19 is specifically declaring Peter’s authority and utterly connected to Peter’s rockness, since keys of authority is only found in Is 22, Eliakim as vizier ONLY being the one minister with keys, hence the authority to shut what other ministers opened and open what other ministers had shut. Only the king had the authority to override the vizier’s decisions. Declarations of faith have no ability to countermand other peoples’ actions, but people with authority do.
 
Last edited:
3rd, Peter being ‘this very rock’ is based NOT on his character but on the Divinely bestowed authority Christ gives Peter in v. 19-20
 
po18guy said:
What did Saint Paul teach as the pillar and foundation of truth?

Hint: NOT the scriptures.
Click to expand...
And as I recall, just two verses later, he described two characteristics that what would disqualify a religious group as qualifying as that “pillar & foundation.”
 
SaberBob said:
Hence, in Aramaic it would have been a declarative wordplay, “you are Cephas and on Cephas I will build…”
Click to expand...
If Jesus was speaking Aramaic, the Aramaic equivalent would be 'cela, which would directly translate into petra in Greek. Therefore, the more accurate translation into Greek would be “You are Cephas on this 'cela I will build my church.” So, you are right, it is a play-on-words.
 
SaberBob said:
verse 19 is specifically declaring Peter’s authority and utterly connected to Peter’s rockness, since keys of authority is only found in Is 22
Click to expand...
And Jesus explicitly explains the purpose of the keys - to bind & loose, which He extends to the rest of the church in Matthew 18:18. Since He repeats the binding & loosing there, it is unnecessary to repeat the keys are needed for the church to do this, since He told them this just two chapter earlier when He applied it to Peter.

And Isaiah 22:22 applies to the keys JESUS holds, not Peter:

“He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens” (Revelation 3:7)

“Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
 
Raised, to put this charitably you are being consistently inconsistent. You claim Jesus gives the keys to the rest of the apostles in chp 18 (with no text, merely asserted) because there was no need to explicitly repeat this but there was apparently the need to give them “loose and bind”. Likewise, you asserted the keys in Is 22 is actually Jesus’ authority though Jesus is actually the Davidic king; Peter fits FAR better as the Eliakim as vizier, a prime minister figure. Back in the 16th century, Martin Luther was floored in debate with Cardinal Cajentan when the latter used Eliakim/Peter, that in his private writings, Luther admitted Peter alone had the keys of authority.
 
All I am saying is that in Matthew 18:18, when Jesus is talking about church discipline, He giving the church the power to bind and loose, just as He gave Peter the power to bind and loose in Matthew 16:19. The only difference is here, Jesus explains what it takes TO bind and loose - having access to the keys. Therefore, it would follow that in order for the church in Matthew 18:18 to bind and loose, Jesus would have to extend giving the keys to them as well, not Peter alone. But Jesus not bringing up the keys too in Matthew 18:18 is inconsequential since He mentioned them previously ALONG WITH the binding and loosing two chapters back. Regarding Isaiah 22:22, read the passage and compare it to Revelation 3:7, where Jesus quotes Isaiah and says it applies to HIM. No offense, but using Cajentan’s debate with Luther only demonstrates what HE believed, which is eisegetical at best. And as far as Luther, I have never understood why Catholics try to use Luther as a “silver bullet” against Protestantism, since a Protestant’s source is not Luther, but Scripture. And Luther was simply acknowledging Peter is the only one MENTIONED as possessing the keys. But that does not follow the rest of the church did not possess them. Plus, we have to remember Luther was Catholic, so unfortunately he carried over some Catholicism over to the Reformation. BTW, Cajentan’s OT canon, mirrored more closely to the Protestant OT. Don’t know if you want to use him as a source.
 
Yes, Raised, it DOES follow that Peter alone gets the keys, just like Eliakim gets the keys alone like any other vizier in the ancient middle East. Really, bringing up Cajaten’s opinion on the OT Canon is a non sequitur to the topic, whereas Luther along with Albright, Carson, Franz, Mair, and even Bultmann confirm the Catholic interpretation is the most direct evidence supported one.
 
Last edited:
RaisedCatholic said:
Therefore, it would follow that in order for the church in Matthew 18:18 to bind and loose, Jesus would have to extend giving the keys to them as well, not Peter alone.
Click to expand...
No, not exactly. 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.
RaisedCatholic said:
BTW, Cajentan’s OT canon, mirrored more closely to the Protestant OT. Don’t know if you want to use him as a source.
Click to expand...
He may have questioned but as noted in this article. He trusted God and remained loyal to the Catholic church.

“Saint Cajetan was one of the great reformers of the Church during the period of the Reformation, remaining loyal to the Church .”

He did not follow the protestant reformation.

 
Last edited:
I’ll admit I rely upon others Koine expertise, but really, claiming secondary or even tertiary usages of Taunte Kai to say Jesus was referring to some other rock than Peter is so strained, so tenuous as to beg credulity, ESPECIALLY when the other rock-reference is in other chapters or other books. Also, to claim Jesus in Aramaic used some other word than Cephas to refer to the foundational rock of the Church is an assertion that DESTROYS the wordplay of Cephas… Cephas. Finally, if Matthew wanted to indicate some other rock than Peter he could used “alla” , Koine for “other” and then explicitly Indicate what the other rock was.
 
As Stephen Ray puts it re those other verses of Christ being “the rock”, DON’T MIX YOUR METAPHORS". In the others, God (the Father) is building on Christ, in Mt 16 Jesus is clearly building on Peter.
 
SaberBob said:
Also, to claim Jesus in Aramaic used some other word than Cephas to refer to the foundational rock of the Church is an assertion that DESTROYS the wordplay of Cephas… Cephas. Finally, if Matthew wanted to indicate some other rock than Peter he could used “alla” , Koine for “other” and then explicitly Indicate what the other rock was.
Click to expand...
St. Johns gospel (chapter 1) and some of St. Pauls writings use Cephas. The evidence points to Cephas being the Aramic word that Jesus used.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except there is no scriptural evidence for this. Answer this please: based on Jesus’ conversation with Peter in Matthew 16:18, how exactly was Peter able to bind & loose? The same way the rest of the church is able to - possessing the keys.
MagdalenaRita said:
He may have questioned but as noted in this article. He trusted God and remained loyal to the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t change the fact he was a Cardinal, yet he disagreed with the OT canon of the church in his day he “remained loyal to”…except staying “loyal” to what counts as Scripture. Same thing with Cardinal Ximenes & even Erasmus who also both remained “loyal,” except for the OT canon.
 
po18guy said:
Yes, I am fully aware of that. I still completely miss your point.
Click to expand...
What do verses 1 through 4 of 2 Timothy 4 states disqualifies an ecclesiastical body of being “the pillar & shield of the truth”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top