What's your Church's teaching on Matthew 16:18 and why?

[adrift]

You have to find other verses that speak of the same topic and the verse that was quoted is vague at best. Yes Simon means stone

,
Simon means to hear

but stone also means “plummet” and plummet

If you are meaning Peter, Peter means stone or rock. Plummet has not relation to Peter. Plummet means to fall.

also means ‘measuring line’

Well you getting closer to a correct definition.

and measuring line also means ‘justice and righteousness’

a measuring line can is neutral it does not bring justice or righteousness by itself.

](as in God’s). God would build his church not upon Peter, but upon the rock/stone (justice and righteousness via God’s words) - Jesus being* the word made flesh*.

Jesus said differently. Jesus said your name is Cephas/Peter/Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church. This rock refers back to Cephas/Peter/Rock which is a name change. Name changes in the bible was significant which you treat here that there is no meaning to it. There were only three name changes in the Bible.

 

[sadignis]

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I tell you, first you must understand that the “rock”,“gates of hell”, “church” here symbolizes something. The church does not mean a physical church but it signifies a true church(real Christians) that cannot be seen by man precisely but only God alone can see perfectly. The rock symbolizes solidity means solid faith(real born again/resisting temptations) not like hypocrites. “Gates of hell” means temptations of the world(will lead you to Hell) not a physical gate.

1 John 2:3-6
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

You must also know that God does not love the things of the world. The things of the world are evil in nature. God also knows that everything in the world will pass away.

NT:
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. -Heaven means sky here not a kingdom.

OT equivalent:
Isaiah 40:7-8 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

Why Jesus gave Peter the key?
Peter is symbolized as the rock.
Rock = Peter; Rock = Solid Faith; Peter = Solid Faith;
Then the “Key” means not a physical one but this → we must follow Peter as an example. If you follow Peter you follow God because God is the master of Peter.

Peter’s faith remained solid after he had seen the death/resurrection of Jesus. He resisted/endured the temptations of the world until his death unlike the other apostles.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Since the biggest argument against Peter being the rock - but his confession of Faith. It would make no sense in making a gender specific declaration by Christ. Instead of using a feminine noun for rock, He used the masculine noun - thus, making a clear distinction of the rock being Peter.

Ah, got it, good point. The pet rock theory, while looking for the complex solution it was simplicity staring us in the face. I notice the truth often results as such.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

You must also know that God does not love the things of the world. The things of the world are evil in nature. God also knows that everything in the world will pass away.

In Genesis 1, God declares that his creations are good and gives blessings. If God did not love things of the world or thought them evil, why would He call them good and bless them? Do you have evidence to suggest God later changed his mind on this? Indeed God’s word will abide forever and this world will pass away. But, does allowing something to pass away automatically equal that the thing be evil or unloved?

NT:
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. -Heaven means sky here not a kingdom.
OT equivalent:
Isaiah 40:7-8 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

Why Jesus gave Peter the key?

OT: Isaiah 22:22 “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (RSVCE)

NT: Matthew 16:19 "[speaking to Peter] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (RSVCE)

Peter is symbolized as the rock.
Rock = Peter; Rock = Solid Faith; Peter = Solid Faith;
Then the “Key” means not a physical one but this → we must follow Peter as an example. If you follow Peter you follow God because God is the master of Peter.

You may find it insightful to review this thread in full if you have not already, especially the posts around the 50s and on. I think the participants have provided a very exhaustive discussion on St. Peter as rock and of his faith. It has been very educational for me.

Peter’s faith remained solid after he had seen the death/resurrection of Jesus. He resisted/endured the temptations of the world until his death unlike the other apostles.

This is an interesting statement as to why St. Peter is refered to as rock. I would be curious to see the evidence supporting that the other apostles, unlike St. Peter, did not resist/endure temptations of the world until death (Judas aside). Could you provide?

And welcome to CAF!!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

What is the significance of Jesus saying, “You are Peter” and is “Peter” the same word as “rock” that Jesus will build His Church on?

What’s your Church’s official teaching on this exact phrase?

Rock= Latin is Petros, Greek Aramaic is Cepha or Kepha = rock. Martin Luther cannot come along 1600 years later and change the divine holy orders which Jesus Christ himself consecrated to himself and instituted in the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church. Peter and all his apostolic successors (the popes) are the only unbroken line to Jesus which Peters office has never fallen into heresy, thus the gates of hell have never prevailed against Peters chair and Jesus Apostolic Catholic Church. Demons and other biblical witnesses have proclaimed Jesus the Son of God, yet Jesus never begins to build His church on neither of their faiths. God the Father revealed this to Simon alone. Saint Paul confirms Jesus name change of Simon to rock = Cepha. The early Church. After the apostles recognized the first recorded popes from Peter were all called rock= Peter till this day. History disproves anyone who falsely claim that the whole christian church is named Peter. The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ as Jesus himself calls her His body not Peter. Jesus builds His Church upon Peter = rock. God does not change nor does Gods Catholic Church. Peter singularly is given the e divine keys and binding loosing over the whole Militant Church all the other bishops have the same powers over the domestic Church.

 

[dmwessel]

Dmwessel you stated:

Quote:

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture.

I showed you 4 verses where it explicitly calls Simon Peter “Rock”.

You said:

Quote:

the verse that was quoted is vague at best.

This is what people usually say when they can’t explain the other verses that challenge their theology

No it wasn’t vague. It was explicit—all four of them were explicit (here).

Then you then cite Galatians 2 and 1st Corinthians 1, both of which ALSO specifically explicitly refer to Simon Peter as “Cephas” (“Rock”).

If you want, we can discuss what “Rock” means and doesn’t mean, but your position of Peter never being called “Rock” in Scripture (“he is never called that in scripture”) is just false. It is UN-Biblical.

Quote:

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture.

And it doesn’t help your position when you CITE verses specifically referring to Peter as “rock” or “Cephas” . . . . .
. . . . . to DENY Peter as “Rock” or Cephas.

This is what happens when you venture off onto “the island of private interpretation” dmwessel.

Kephas is the Aramaic word for Rock.

The Greek transliteration of “Kephas” (Rock) is “Cephas” (Rock).

Simon Peter is explicitly called “Rock” in Scripture–many times.

 

[dmwessel]

Christ is, of course, the rock on which all things are built - but this does not mean others cannot also be called “rocks,” as long as it is understood that they do not stand alone, but only in union with Christ. Ephesians 2:20, for instance, calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundations of Christ’s household, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.

What I meant by that is that in reference to Cephas in the original post stated that Cephas was the rock, but it says on this rock. The Bible never calls Peter the rock, as only Christ can be that. And I agree that we can all be called rocks in the sense that Peter was… but stone (rock) has a figurative * meaning (as in the stone that was before Joshua) as the translation is * plummet, or plumb line, or measuring line, which is figurative for the word of God.

 

[dmwessel]

dmwessel:
To Cathoholic:

I disputed that Peter was the rock and I showed other verses that revealed that Paul and Apollos were listed as leaders right alongside Peter.

 

[Nicea325]

What I meant by that is that in reference to Cephas in the original post stated that Cephas was the rock, but it says on this rock. The Bible never calls Peter the rock, as only Christ can be that. And I agree that we can all be called rocks in the sense that Peter was… but stone (rock) has a figurative * meaning (as in the stone that was before Joshua) as the translation is * plummet, or plumb line, or measuring line, which is figurative for the word of God.

Nope! I can provide evidence where God uses it elsewhere.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope! I can provide evidence where God uses it elsewhere.

It was already proven to him, it must be those anti-Catholic browsers that block the truth.

Here they are again:

1 Cor 1:12
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

1 Cor 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or **Cephas **or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;

1 Cor 9:5
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethern of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Cor 15:5
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Gal 2:9
and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and **Cephas **and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Gal 2:11
But when **Cephas **came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Gal 2:14
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Something else to think about. Since Paul was not with the Apostles during Christ ministry and even less in the passage where Christ names Simon: **Cephas **— I wonder where Paul must have gotten this reference?

Aha!!!

Oral Tradition from the other Apostles!!!

 

[dronald]

It was already proven to him, it must be those anti-Catholic browsers that block the truth.

Here they are again:

1 Cor 1:12
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

1 Cor 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or **Cephas **or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;

1 Cor 9:5
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethern of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Cor 15:5
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

Gal 2:9
and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and **Cephas **and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Gal 2:11
But when **Cephas **came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Gal 2:14
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Something else to think about. Since Paul was not with the Apostles during Christ ministry and even less in the passage where Christ names Simon: **Cephas **— I wonder where Paul must have gotten this reference?

Aha!!!

Oral Tradition from the other Apostles!!!

Hm… doesn’t 1 corin 1:12 strike down the whole, “I follow Cephas” idea?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hm… doesn’t 1 corin 1:12 strike down the whole, “I follow Cephas” idea?

Who follows Cephas or Peter? Peter is the vicar of Christ on earth until Jesus returns finding him feeding, teaching and tending Jesus flock, as Jesus commissioned Peter( John 21). Peter and the apostolic successors (Catholic bishops) are the divinely ordained guardians of Jesus teachings and divine revelations they cannot add to them or change them. When they have come under attack Peter and the apostles have exercised the divine keys given to them by Jesus to bind and loose on earth while Jesus binds and loose in heaven. That is why hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church.

 

[dronald]

Who follows Cephas or Peter? Peter is the vicar of Christ on earth until Jesus returns finding him feeding, teaching and tending Jesus flock, as Jesus commissioned Peter( John 21). Peter and the apostolic successors (Catholic bishops) are the divinely ordained guardians of Jesus teachings and divine revelations they cannot add to them or change them. When they have come under attack Peter and the apostles have exercised the divine keys given to them by Jesus to bind and loose on earth while Jesus binds and loose in heaven. That is why hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church.

I wouldn’t say the gates of Hell would prevail against the Catholic Church and I don’t think other Church’s are the gates of Hell. (I don’t think you’re saying this either)

I’m just curious why Paul was explicit about not saying “I follow Cephas” rather he says we ought to follow Christ. Can you explain why he would say that?

Likewise, later Paul claims that they aren’t anything; what’s your belief on the following:

1 corin 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul, " and another, "I follow Apollos, " are you not being merely human?

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hm… doesn’t 1 corin 1:12 strike down the whole, “I follow Cephas” idea?

We follow Christ, all of us. However, it was Cephas who is referenced in Matt 16:18 and who is singled out by Christ to Strengthen his brothers and to tend and feed His sheep.

However, this type of argumentation would invalidate Paul’s own words here:

1 Timothy 4:6
If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the **good doctrine which you have carefully followed. **

2 Timothy 3:10–17
10 But you have carefully **followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, **11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

The “follow” in your post is separating the doctrine, tradition and teaching that the Apostles were entrusted with and passed down to generations to our present day. You are missing the point Paul is making in that instance — do not look at ourselves outside of Christ.

The Pope holds to the Office of Peter and is the Key Holder for this doctrine, tradition and teaching. Which belongs to Christ.

We cannot look at the Church apart from Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I wouldn’t say the gates of Hell would prevail against the Catholic Church and I don’t think other Church’s are the gates of Hell. (I don’t think you’re saying this either)

I’m just curious why Paul was explicit about not saying “I follow Cephas” rather he says we ought to follow Christ. Can you explain why he would say that?

Likewise, later Paul claims that they aren’t anything; what’s your belief on the following:

1 corin 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul, " and another, "I follow Apollos, " are you not being merely human?

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.

The infant Corinthian Church was divided of whom to follow. Some believers saw and heard the Gospel first from Peter, these may have seen Jesus in person? Paul a latter convert brings the same Gospel message to their city at Corinth, many converts do not trust Paul early on’ because the first converts new Sau/Paull as a persecuter of Christians.Peter entrusts Paul to the Christians. Paul is known as the great Christian evangelist. Peter is known by all first century Jews and Christians as the leader of the apostles. Paul is teaching the Corinthians what we Catholics still hold today, that the same gospel of Jesus is preached by all apostles of Jesus and the message is NOT Peters to follow nor is the message Pauls to follow. These are human servants of the divine Gospel of Jesus Christ whom they serve and all follow Jesus. Paul even teaches later that they should imitate his DISCIPLINES and follow Jesus as Paul does. Paul is the one who visits Peter to confirm that Paul teaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[dronald]

The infant Corinthian Church was divided of whom to follow. Some believers saw and heard the Gospel first from Peter, these may have seen Jesus in person? Paul a latter convert brings the same Gospel message to their city at Corinth, many converts do not trust Paul early on’ because the first converts new Sau/Paull as a persecuter of Christians.Peter entrusts Paul to the Christians. Paul is known as the great Christian evangelist. Peter is known by all first century Jews and Christians as the leader of the apostles. Paul is teaching the Corinthians what we Catholics still hold today, that the same gospel of Jesus is preached by all apostles of Jesus and the message is NOT Peters to follow nor is the message Pauls to follow. These are human servants of the divine Gospel of Jesus Christ whom they serve and all follow Jesus. Paul even teaches later that they should imitate his DISCIPLINES and follow Jesus as Paul does. Paul is the one who visits Peter to confirm that Paul teaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I fail to see the difference in our separation. Your contention is that some wanted to follow one specifically, “I’m of Cephas.” Is this not what the Catholic Church teaches now? That they are the proper Church based on a lineage to Peter?

I read Paul’s letters and he seems so against this line of thinking, and that we should all claim to be following Christ. I don’t think it’s right to be told I’m following Christ improperly because I don’t claim to be “of Peter.” The Copts who are as old as your Church say Mark founded them.

Mark, Peter, Paul, Christ; does it really matter who the Church is built on? Isn’t that what Paul emphasized? Surely both our Church’s are built on Christ and not on Peter as Paul claimed that those who water are not anything.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I fail to see the difference in our separation. Your contention is that some wanted to follow one specifically, “I’m of Cephas.” Is this not what the Catholic Church teaches now? That they are the proper Church based on a lineage to Peter?

I read Paul’s letters and he seems so against this line of thinking, and that we should all claim to be following Christ. I don’t think it’s right to be told I’m following Christ improperly because I don’t claim to be “of Peter.” The Copts who are as old as your Church say Mark founded them.

Mark, Peter, Paul, Christ; does it really matter who the Church is built on? Isn’t that what Paul emphasized? Surely both our Church’s are built on Christ and not on Peter as Paul claimed that those who water are not anything.

First of all Mark was a disciple of Peter. Mark owes his bishophoric to Peter who sends him. Including the apostolic lineage from Antioch owes its bishophoric to Peter also. But all of these apostolic church’s have all fallen in and out of heresy except the bishop’s of Rome. Pauls emphasis is that both he and Peter preach the same Jesus, and it is their gospel given to them by Jesus himself that we all follow, we don’t follow mere men as peter and Paul but we all follow Jesus Christ according to the message delivered to us by the apostles by mouth or oral teaching or letter to follow the Traditions Peter and Paul and others have handed down to the first Christians. Which the Catholic Church still practices today unchanged because her members were there to recieve them from the apostles. No other Christian can make this claim except Peter in the popes whom Jesus promised he will be with always. All other apostolic sees have had the gates of hell in heresy prevailed over them many have repented and returned to communion with Peter. I don’t question your Christianity in Christ but your communion with Peter and our head Jesus Christ becomes a question of communion. I don’t view church as you do? My Catholic Church is the BIBLICAL mystical body of Christ and Jesus is our head, not Peter nor Paul is Paul’s emphasis in it’s entirety.

 

[dronald]

First of all Mark was a disciple of Peter. Mark owes his bishophoric to Peter who sends him. Including the apostolic lineage from Antioch owes its bishophoric to Peter also. But all of these apostolic church’s have all fallen in and out of heresy except the bishop’s of Rome. Pauls emphasis is that both he and Peter preach the same Jesus, and it is their gospel given to them by Jesus himself that we all follow, we don’t follow mere men as peter and Paul but we all follow Jesus Christ according to the message delivered to us by the apostles by mouth or oral teaching or letter to follow the Traditions Peter and Paul and others have handed down to the first Christians. Which the Catholic Church still practices today unchanged because her members were there to recieve them from the apostles. No other Christian can make this claim except Peter in the popes whom Jesus promised he will be with always. All other apostolic sees have had the gates of hell in heresy prevailed over them many have repented and returned to communion with Peter. I don’t question your Christianity in Christ but your communion with Peter and our head Jesus Christ becomes a question of communion. I don’t view church as you do? My Catholic Church is the BIBLICAL mystical body of Christ and Jesus is our head, not Peter nor Paul is Paul’s emphasis in it’s entirety.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t get by the bold when I read what Paul wrote. I doubt Paul cared that people would say, “my Church is built on Peter” rather, it was always Christ; which we both claim. So there’s no issue unless we make it one like the first Christians did.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m sorry, but I just can’t get by the bold when I read what Paul wrote. I doubt Paul cared that people would say, “my Church is built on Peter” rather, it was always Christ; which we both claim. So there’s no issue unless we make it one like the first Christians did.

So you have no opinion on what I explained and we are to ignore the Pastoral Epistles and don’t understand the different focus Paul addresses?

Do we listen to everything Scriptures tell us, or only the ones we want/like?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sorry, but I just can’t get by the bold when I read what Paul wrote. I doubt Paul cared that people would say, “my Church is built on Peter” rather, it was always Christ; which we both claim. So there’s no issue unless we make it one like the first Christians did.

For clarification: Catholics still hold to Pauls teaching that we all follow Christ. Paul never says to reject Peter or to reject Paul as apostles of Jesus Christ. Paul rejects the idea that the gospel he and Peter brings to them comes divided among men. Peter and Paul’s gospel is not of human origin, but founded by Jesus Christ. It is not a gospel of men so as to follow Peter or Paul who are mere mortal men. I think your reading a 20th century interpretation of the text instead of a first century interpretation of Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians? Paul learns first hand from Jesus that the Church is Jesus body and that the Church is not a democracy to follow mere men. Christ is our head of the body the Church. Some one has dupped you, if you think? Catholics follow Peter and His successors in the Popes because it is the Popes or Peter’s church? Your false view of the Catholic church is never a Catholic belief from the get. The first Christians followed all the apostles and the apostles lead in communion with Peter whom Jesus commissioned to confirm his brethren, that is Jesus gospel not Peter’s.