What is the best response?

[SuwaeNSDG]

**Hi All,

Ive been discussing the Catholic church with a Protestant friend. Below is the comment he last made. Anyone like to help me with a response?**

Jesus is the rock that Moses hits in the desert the rock that gives water of life there’s tons of old testament scripture that refer to Christ in metaphoric form. Thus MATTHEW 16:13-17 doesn’t use the term Rock for Jesus.

Re:: the rock is the revelation given to Peter On what Peter said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God that is the rock the firm belief That all churches would be built on . Not just the Catholic Church sorry friend But all churches that believe in Christ would be built on that firm Belief . When Peter denied Jesus 3 times he lost his discipleship . Matt 26:69 ;Luke 22:55-62 John 18:15-18,25-27’ .

When Jesus rose on the third day and vested Peter on the boat on the seas. John 21 :15-18 . That’s were he regained his discipleship again . and in my strongs concordance Peter pet’-ros means a piece of rock

THANKS ALL & GOD BLESS!!!

 

[Thing]

Re:: the rock is the revelation given to Peter On what Peter said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God that is the rock the firm belief That all churches would be built on

Don’t think the person will listen, but anyway;

Firstly, He said He would build His ‘church’ not churches.

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

Secondly, if the **|rock| **is this statement Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ;
Then the verse would read, replacing rock with that;

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ; and upon this Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Saying Pater is little rock means nothing as little rock is related to nothing in the passage and has no definition or no meaning that I am aware of in Scriptures.

 

[crazzeto]

His interpetation fails to account for what Christ actually said

This is what the bible actually says
drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Notice the language? Notice the definate artical? You are Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my church. Not Church[es] which is what your protestant friend wants to see, but Church.

His view is an amalgom, he see’s the truth of the passage. That Peter is in fact the Rock upon which the church is built. But mentally he can’t accept that, emotionally he can’t accept it. Why? Because it means the Catholic Church is right, the Protistant reformers were heritics and guilty of schism. That’s quite a lot to digest, particularly when you come to the realization that your faith tradition is on the wrong side of heresy and schism.

So he’s come up with this amalgom, this sort of blending of Protestant and Catholic idea’s. He blended the Proestant idea that this is merely a statement of faith, with the idea that this would then be the rock upon which many thousands of christian churches would be built. That’s wrong, that’s reading a whole lot into scripture which simply isn’t there. Walk him through it slowly, force him to pay attention to language, it’s not insignificant.

Jesus didn’t set up multiple churches, he set up a single church.

 

[crazzeto]

More over, ask him to harmonize his interpetation with

John 21:11-18
John 20:1-7 (why did John wait for Peter to show up and enter the tomb before he entered? Since John got there first, and was at the cross at the crusifixion)
Luke 22:31-32 (why does Jesus pray for only Peter when the devil wants everyone)
Acts 2:14-40 (why is it that Peter spoke up, not anyone else?)
Acts 1:15-26 (curiously, again it’s Peter making the calls)
Acts 10-pretty much all of it (Again, Peter is the one to bring in the Gentiles)

This statement of faith thing, no matter how much of an amalgom, just doesn’t harmonize well with everything else happening in scripture.

 

[06convert]

Wait. . I’m confused. What topic are you discussing with him?

I don’t understand what he is saying.

It Matthew’s Gospel Jesus told Peter he was the rock in chapter 16. Then told him in chapter 26 he was going to deny him 3 times. Jesus didn’t change who he picked as the rock.

 

[po18guy]

Not once in scripture did Jesus refer to himself as “rock”. Jesus called himself the “cornerstone”, which the builders rejected. Advise your friend that his ideas and beliefs existed nowhere in Christianity before Luther’s “reformation”. There are numerous threads here regarding “rock” “pebble” “stone” “boulder” and every other imaginable version of Matthew 16:18. The best, which will destroy your friend’s opinion, is one which translates the Aramaic/Syro-Chaldean language in which Matthew was originally written. Do not rely upon Greek translations, since Matthew was written originally in Aramaic. Read the responses of member ronyodish, beginning with post 115. It absolutely crushes such modern protestant opinions:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239277

 

[SuwaeNSDG]

Thanks everyone! I have been going in circles with this guy for awhile and I feel that he waits to reply rather than to listen to what I am saying. His grammar is confusing; sorry, I should have rewrote it for you all!

I will try a bit more and will likely let it go soon. Hopefully at least a seed will be planted and the Holy Spirit will finish the job!

BTW, has anyone ever heard that Peter “lost his discipleship when he denied Christ”? only to regain it later? He made that claim and I had never heard that…

God Bless you all!

~SuwaeNSDG

 

[06convert]

BTW, has anyone ever heard that Peter “lost his discipleship when he denied Christ”? only to regain it later? He made that claim and I had never heard that…

Like I mentioned before. Jesus knew when he chose Peter that Peter was going to go on and deny him 3 times. Jesus had plenty of opportunity to change whom he selected, but didn’t.

A disciple is a student, or a follower. Peter didn’t ever stop being a student and a follower of Christ. That’s silly.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks everyone! I have been going in circles with this guy for awhile and I feel that he waits to reply rather than to listen to what I am saying. His grammar is confusing; sorry, I should have rewrote it for you all!

I will try a bit more and will likely let it go soon. Hopefully at least a seed will be planted and the Holy Spirit will finish the job!

BTW, has anyone ever heard that Peter “lost his discipleship when he denied Christ”? only to regain it later? He made that claim and I had never heard that…

God Bless you all!

~SuwaeNSDG

Peter’s denial of Jesus was to fulfill prophecy. Jesus told Peter “But, when you have turned, encourage your brothers”. This occurred in John 21. The “lost discipleship” is an invented protestant theory that is used to “demote” Peter to just one of the twelve. That is because protestant denominations have no leader, no Pope, no Peter. It is not historical and not biblical - unless you twist scripture’s meaning. But, that is another story.

All you can do for such persons is to pray for them. Logic and history will not convince them as long as the word “Catholic” is involved.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

**Hi All,

Ive been discussing the Catholic church with a Protestant friend. Below is the comment he last made. Anyone like to help me with a response?**

Jesus is the rock that Moses hits in the desert the rock that gives water of life there’s tons of old testament scripture that refer to Christ in metaphoric form. Thus MATTHEW 16:13-17 doesn’t use the term Rock for Jesus.

Re:: the rock is the revelation given to Peter On what Peter said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God that is the rock the firm belief That all churches would be built on . Not just the Catholic Church sorry friend But all churches that believe in Christ would be built on that firm Belief . When Peter denied Jesus 3 times he lost his discipleship . Matt 26:69 ;Luke 22:55-62 John 18:15-18,25-27’ .

When Jesus rose on the third day and vested Peter on the boat on the seas. John 21 :15-18 . That’s were he regained his discipleship again . and in my strongs concordance Peter pet’-ros means a piece of rock

THANKS ALL & GOD BLESS!!!

Maybe what your friend is trying to get across is summed up in 1Cor. 3.

 

[Thing]

Maybe what your friend is trying to get across is summed up in 1Cor. 3.

Have you ever noticed, or anyone else, that when people, most ordinary people that is, speak about themselves they speak about themselves almost quietly. As if they did not wish to speak about themselves but perhaps were more interested in you and hearing about you. If you asked almost anyone who are the most important people in their own lives they might begin like this - well, my children, my wife/husband, parents, grandparents, friends, colleagues and neighbours and so on down the list.

When I have read the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians I see that something strikes my eye;
Here it is;

22 For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; for all are yours; 23 And you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians

St. Pauls list is this;

Paul
Apollo
Cephas
The World
Life
Death
Things present
Things to come
Christ
God

And then I think to myself that in the list St. Paul is actually placing himself, as most people would, at the bottom of the list, and he places God at the top of his list. So St. Pauls list really reads like this, the other way around, in order of importance to himself;

God
Christ
Things to come
Things present
Death
Life
The World
Cephas
Apollo
Paul

St. Paul places God at the top of his list of importance, then Christ and so on down through things until he comes to the first person of importance - and who is that but Cephas. And Cephas is St Peter, the Apostle at the top of St. Pauls list of importance to him.

Thought it was interesting, thats all.

 

[ricmat]

Well, if petros means a piece of rock as your friend says, and Jesus / God is the rock, then that would make Peter a chip off the old block. Quite fitting for Christ’s representative on Earth.

But I haven’t researched this thoroughly, so I may be off track.

 

[DOShea]

I would ask your friend if he believes that Peter somehow disqualified himself from a leadership role in the ministry founded by Jesus Christ - by denying Christ 3 times - then how does he explain the exchange between the risen Christ and Peter in John 21? You know, the commands to “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep?” Also, what about Christ’s prediction that Peter would die in service to that very ministry?

[bibledrb]John 21:14-19[/bibledrb]

It’s very clear, even your friend doesn’t seem to deny that Jesus did choose Peter at one time. If those plans went sour by Peter’s denial, that leaves only 3 possibilities:

1. Christ continued to have Peter as his chosen (Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, follow me)
2. Christ discarded Peter and made a different selection - who would that be?
3. Christ chose Peter, the plan fell apart, and He left it that way. This seems to make a mockery of the plan from the very start, making it hardly worth consideration.

 

[crazzeto]

Have you ever noticed, or anyone else, that when people, most ordinary people that is, speak about themselves they speak about themselves almost quietly. As if they did not wish to speak about themselves but perhaps were more interested in you and hearing about you. If you asked almost anyone who are the most important people in their own lives they might begin like this - well, my children, my wife/husband, parents, grandparents, friends, colleagues and neighbours and so on down the list.

When I have read the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians I see that something strikes my eye;
Here it is;

22 For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; for all are yours; 23 And you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians

St. Pauls list is this;

Paul
Apollo
Cephas
The World
Life
Death
Things present
Things to come
Christ
God

And then I think to myself that in the list St. Paul is actually placing himself, as most people would, at the bottom of the list, and he places God at the top of his list. So St. Pauls list really reads like this, the other way around, in order of importance to himself;

God
Christ
Things to come
Things present
Death
Life
The World
Cephas
Apollo
Paul

St. Paul places God at the top of his list of importance, then Christ and so on down through things until he comes to the first person of importance - and who is that but Cephas. And Cephas is St Peter, the Apostle at the top of St. Pauls list of importance to him.

Thought it was interesting, thats all.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Whether or not Peter was a leader among the apostles is irrelevant; the point I think the “Protestant friend” is trying to make is that Peter is not the foundation upon which the church is built.

 

[Tomster]

**Hi All,

Ive been discussing the Catholic church with a Protestant friend. Below is the comment he last made. Anyone like to help me with a response?**

Jesus is the rock that Moses hits in the desert the rock that gives water of life there’s tons of old testament scripture that refer to Christ in metaphoric form. Thus MATTHEW 16:13-17 doesn’t use the term Rock for Jesus.

Re:: the rock is the revelation given to Peter On what Peter said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God that is the rock the firm belief That all churches would be built on . Not just the Catholic Church sorry friend But all churches that believe in Christ would be built on that firm Belief . When Peter denied Jesus 3 times he lost his discipleship . Matt 26:69 ;Luke 22:55-62 John 18:15-18,25-27’ .

When Jesus rose on the third day and vested Peter on the boat on the seas. John 21 :15-18 . That’s were he regained his discipleship again . and in my strongs concordance Peter pet’-ros means a piece of rock

THANKS ALL & GOD BLESS!!!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=398448&page=3

posts # 35, 36, 39, 40

 

[crazzeto]

Whether or not Peter was a leader among the apostles is irrelevant; the point I think the “Protestant friend” is trying to make is that Peter is not the foundation upon which the church is built.

And what was the foundation of the Church? The bible? There are three common threads in all the posts I have chosen. 1) There wasn’t a bible as we have it yet, in any of these 2) The are all at least 700 years before true and permenant schisim 3) Peter is the rock upon which the Church was founded.

The Poem Against the Marcionites

In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . .

Optatus A.D. 367

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by al

Jerome [responsible for Latin Vulage]

Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord

Augustine 402

If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?

 

[SimonArizona]

Whether or not Peter was a leader among the apostles is irrelevant; the point I think the “Protestant friend” is trying to make is that Peter is not the foundation upon which the church is built.

oops. No it is relevant. Peter is not merely the first among equals, Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom. In the old test the keys were given to the prime minister, who was under the king but above the rest of the cabinet. The prime minister was a head position over the cab. This is what Jesus is signifying to Simon.

Jesus tells a parable on how Whosoever shall build his house upon a rock, it shall withstand the tempest and not fall. Then he says to Simon you are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church…

And someone will pervert the clear meaning of Jesus and say Simon the Rock is not the Rock.

 

[po18guy]

I would ask your friend if he believes that Peter somehow disqualified himself from a leadership role in the ministry founded by Jesus Christ - by denying Christ 3 times - then how does he explain the exchange between the risen Christ and Peter in John 21? You know, the commands to “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep?” Also, what about Christ’s prediction that Peter would die in service to that very ministry?

It’s very clear, even your friend doesn’t seem to deny that Jesus did choose Peter at one time. If those plans went sour by Peter’s denial, that leaves only 3 possibilities:

1. Christ continued to have Peter as his chosen (Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, follow me)
2. Christ discarded Peter and made a different selection - who would that be?
3. Christ chose Peter, the plan fell apart, and He left it that way. This seems to make a mockery of the plan from the very start, making it hardly worth consideration.

I think the OP’s protestant friend has confused Peter with Judas Iscariot, who certainly did lose his discipleship - selling it for 30 pieces of silver. It was only about Judas that Jesus said “But, woe to him by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for him if he had never been born” (Matthew 26:24, Mark 14:21). That is loss of discipleship.

About Peter, Jesus said "and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:29-30). Jesus said this before Peter’s denial, indicating that there would be no loss of discipleship. Jesus also said “Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat But, when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32). How was Peter to strengthen his brethren, if he was not the strongest of the twelve. Again, Jesus said this before Peter denied Jesus.

In the past 500 years, innumerable cockamamie theories have sprouted amongst the thousands of protestant denominations in various failed attempts to attack the man upon whom Jesus founded his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament. The next closest is John, the “beloved disciple” at just 29 times. Peter is always mentioned first, Judas last. Peter was given the keys. Peter denied, then reaffirmed Jesus three times. Peter was to strengthen the brethren. Beside Job, Peter is the only man in scripture that the evil one demanded to be tested. The bible indicates that Peter is much more than just a disciple.

 

[Mickey]

Whether or not Peter was a leader among the apostles is irrelevant; the point I think the “Protestant friend” is trying to make is that Peter is not the foundation upon which the church is built.

Correct. Christ is the foundation.