Who is the ROCK?

[scratrules59]

For the millionth time, who is the ROCK of Matthew 16:18? It appears that the claim of being the so-called ‘true church’ rests solely on the legs of the argument that Peter is… unless, of course, you’re mormon.

The true church is the body of believers in Christ (John 3:16). They are His sheep.

Matthew 16:13-23

Verse 13: Jesus is talking with the disciples (plural), not just Peter.
Verse 14: In answer to His question, it is stated, “they said…” (disciples - plural). All together in chorus or one at a time? One at a time makes more sense.
Verse 15: Jesus spoke again saying “unto them” (disciples - plural), “whom say ye” (disciples - plural)
Verse 16: Peter (Petros - masculine meaning rock or stone) answered, “Christ, Son of the Living God.”
Verse 17: Jesus states that Peter didn’t come up with it on his own, but by God.
Verse 18: Peter said Jesus was the Christ earlier, and now Jesus says he is Peter, and that "upon this rock (Petra - feminine for rock)…meaning His Gospel.
Verse 19: Still talking with the disciples, He gives them the keys, a metaphor meaning “power and authority of various kinds”, to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.
Verse 20: Still talking to the disciples - plural, not just Peter
Verse 21: Still talking to the disciples - plural, not just Peter
Verse 22: Peter rebukes Christ (now possessed by satan)
Verse 23: Jesus directly calls Peter, satan.

The keys were given to ALL the disciples. I hardly think that Jesus would address the brand new pope as satan, or even allow him to be possessed. What a start to the papacy that would be.

As a typical poster would say…that CLEARLY shows the truth…in English and in Greek. In I Peter 2:4-8, Peter describes Christ as a rock or cornerstone.

P r e t t y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d

 

[David]

I hardly think that Jesus would address the brand new pope as satan, or even allow him to be possessed. What a start to the papacy that would be.

The word satan can be understood as an adversary.
Why do you think Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter?

Peace
David

 

[Farsight001]

For the millionth time, who is the ROCK of Matthew 16:18? It appears that the claim of being the so-called ‘true church’ rests solely on the legs of the argument that Peter is… unless, of course, you’re mormon.

First of all, the fact that it appears to you that the claim rests solely on this argument only shows how ignorant you are of Catholicism. It certainly does not rest solely on anything. There are dozens of verses used to support the Church. There are entire books on the subject that dive deep into copious amounts of scripture, explaining Greek and Hebrew and ancient cultural nuances to explain things. Try reading one of them sometime.

The true church is the body of believers in Christ (John 3:16). They are His sheep.

John 3:16 says nothing of the sort. How ridiculous.

In contrast, we have verses such as Luke 10:16, where Jesus tells the apostles “he that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me’ and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” In other words, to follow God, one MUST follow Jesus, and to follow Jesus, one MUST follow the apostles. And lo, a concrete Church, with a defined hierarchy was born.

We also have Ephesians 2:20-1, which describes Christ’s Church as “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord.” So we see a Church building with a defined framework. A generalized “body of believers”, especially one with no leadership and a wide variety of beliefs, has no such thing.

Verse 19: Still talking with the disciples, He gives them the keys, a metaphor meaning “power and authority of various kinds”, to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

No, this is incorrect. He is speaking specifically to Peter here. The singular is used. If your translation uses the plural, it is incorrect. Only in the next verse does he return to speaking to all of the disciples.

Verse 22: Peter rebukes Christ (now possessed by satan)
Verse 23: Jesus directly calls Peter, satan.

Nothing about any of this suggests Peter was possessed.

I hardly think that Jesus would address the brand new pope as satan, or even allow him to be possessed. What a start to the papacy that would be.

Again, he wasn’t possessed, but regardless, why wouldn’t Jesus address him that way? Peter clearly screwed up. He was earnest in his desire, but incorrect. Why would Jesus not correct him?

As a typical poster would say…that CLEARLY shows the truth…in English and in Greek. In I Peter 2:4-8, Peter describes Christ as a rock or cornerstone.

P r e t t y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d

As a typical poster would say, yes. But the typical poster doesn’t know their bleep from a hole in the ground. The point being, who cares what the typical poster says? It’s about truth. It’s about diving into scripture and truly grasping and understanding it, not reading it, coming to a conclusion, and never really digging any deeper.

 

[Barbkw]

Verse 18: Peter said Jesus was the Christ earlier, and now Jesus says he is Peter, and that "upon this rock **(Petra - feminine for rock)…**meaning His Gospel.

Christ said in Aramaic, “You are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock), I will build My Church.”

And again, this exchange between Jesus, Peter and the other Apostles present is retold in 3 Gospels.

But really then, the question is, in the New Testament are there other situations in which Peter is looked to as the last authority?

That is, did the Apostles ever acknowlege Peter as holding a transferable office (given to him by Jesus), as the person to whom the other Apostles would go to to determine which matters would be “bound” and which would be “loosed”?

 

[bmullins]

Peter is the rock, and the rock of the church is Peter’s confession. Catholics agree completely that the church is founded on the rock of Peter’s confession, that Jesus is the foundation an corner store of the church. It also agrees that Peter is the rock, because Jesus said he was.

 

[Barbkw]

I hardly think that Jesus would address the brand new pope as satan…

Believe it, because Jesus did. Why did Jesus turn to Peter and call him Satan?

 

[SonCatcher]

The true church is the body of believers in Christ (John 3:16). They are His sheep.

Of course they are… and to WHOM did He entrust them?

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[prodigalson2011]

I hardly think that Jesus would address the brand new pope as satan, or even allow him to be possessed. What a start to the papacy that would be.

I want you to go to a dictionary, right now, and look up the word HYPERBOLE.
Because Jesus used a lot of it.

No, wait. I’ll do it for you:

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

If you take everything in Jesus says at face value, you should be missing some body parts by now ("if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out… right hand, cut it off…), and you should never EVER refer to Jesus as “the good Lord” or the “good Shepherd” (“Why do you call me good? …No one but the Father in Heaven is good.”) or call your immediate male ancestor your “father.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

Verse 19: Still talking with the disciples, He gives them the keys, a metaphor meaning “power and authority of various kinds”, to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

You were doing so well with your singular/plural Greek lesson - why stop here? Could it be because, if you venture too far into Matthew 16, the Greek absolutely proves you wrong?

Greek can both confuse and clarify. In the case of “rock,” the Greek translator was forced to use the masculine ending when applying the name to Peter. This adds confusion, because it appears on the surface that the names are different (even though they are the same in Aramaic). But Greek can also clarify.

When Jesus asked the Apostles, “Who do you say that I am?” we know (from the context) it is the plural form of the pronoun “you.” In English, “you” can be either singular or plural - we must infer the meaning from the context (he asked “them” - plural context). But it’s not necessary to INFER it in Greek - we can actually check, because Greek pronouns don’t do double-duty.

And, indeed, when addressing the Apostles, He addresses them ὑς - a plural pronoun -* “who do you (plural) say I am?”* But when handing out the keys to Peter, he (or, more specifically, the author of Matthew) uses the singular form of you, . “I give to you (singular) the keys… and what you (singular) shall bind…”
*
Later, in Matt 18:18, Jesus also gives the authority of binding and loosing (but not the keys) to the other Apostles, using the plural “whatever you (plural) bind on earth…”* And no Catholic would deny that the Bishops collectively hold authority (in fact, we insist upon it). But this authority was given first and foremost (and specifically) to Peter. And only Peter received the authority of the keys.

No wonder you stopped your little Greek lesson. It kinda messes up your point, doesn’t it?

 

[SonCatcher]

You were doing so well with your singular/plural Greek lesson - why stop here? Could it be because it proves you wrong?

Greek can both confuse and clarify. In the case of “rock,” the Greek translator was forced to use the masculine ending when applying the name to Peter. This adds confusion, because it appears on the surface that the names are different (even though they are the same in Aramaic). But Greek can also clarify.

When Jesus asked the Apostles, “Who do you say that I am?” we know (from the context) it is the plural form of the pronoun “you.” In English, “you” can be either singular or plural - we must infer the meaning from the context. But it’s not necessary to INFER it in Greek - we can actually check, because Greek pronouns don’t do double-duty.

And, indeed, when addressing the Apostles, He addresses them ὑς - a plural pronoun - “who do you (plural) say I am?” But when handing out the keys to Peter, he (or, more specifically, the author of Matthew) uses the singular form of you, . “I give to you (singular) the keys… and what you (singular) shall bind…”

Later, in Matt 18:18, Jesus also gives the authority of binding and loosing (but not the keys) to the other Apostles, using the plural “whatever you (plural) bind on earth…” And no Catholic would deny that the Bishops collectively hold authority (in fact, we insist upon it). But this authority was given first and foremost (and specifically) to Peter. And only Peter received the authority of the keys.

No wonder you stopped your little Greek lesson. It kinda messes up your point, doesn’t it?

Good catch. “You” can be singular or plural BUT English was not always so obscure. A few hundred years ago there was a second person familiar for that was only used in the singular: “thee.” Let’s see how they translated it then…

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:19[/BIBLEDRB]

Pretty unambiguous, even in English. Jesus gave the keys to one person in the presence of many.

 

[Leegal]

This was the topic of my Church’s homily. It’s important to note that Jesus changed Peter’s name. The Church, as any building, has to have a firm foundation. All the apostles and prophets are a part of the foundation, as Jesus is the cornerstone.

But Peter knew Jesus was the son of God. He could not know this unless he was divinely inspired. And so Peter is the leader of that foundation and it’s rock - referring back to Isiah 51.

Also in Isiah: “Listen to me you who pursue saving justice, you who seek Yahweh; consider the rock (pietra) from which you were hewn, the quarry from which you were dug; consider Abraham your father, and Sarah who gave you birth. When I called him, he was the only one, but I blessed him and made him numerous” (Is 51, 1-2). This indicates that a new beginning of the People of God is with Peter."

Last, when Peter contradicts Jesus as to His upcoming death, Jesus sees Peter as a stumbling block or obstacle. The admonishment means that Jesus is telling Peter to follow him as in “get thee behind me” and not act contrary and Peter does know the path ahead, but that Peter must follow. Peter was displaying his humaness when he thought surely what was predicted would not come to pass.

ocarm.org/en/content/lectio/lectio-matthew-1613-23

 

[DavidFilmer]

A few hundred years ago there was a second person familiar for that was only used in the singular: “thee.”

And, indeed, we see the plural form (you, or ‘ye’ in KJV) in this same translation:

Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

It does clear up this passage:

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

All this time, I had assumed Peter was talking to all of the Apostles. After all, are we not all christ (which means “anointed”) and aren’t we all children of God? It’s a good thing we have that singular pronoun to clear that up

 

[Speedypizza]

Another point you need to consider is the very meaning of the terms to bind and to loose. Who in your church has the power to do this? Not a preacher, if I don’t agree with him, I can leave and go find another Church that does agree with me, OR start yet another denomination. If you are saying that he gave this power to ALL the believers collectively, this makes no sense.

Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority.

If EVERYBODY could do this it would be a comical mess.

Bob: I bind you Rick to have to wash my car.
Rick: Rats! I hate washing cars!
Frank: I loose Rick from having to wash Bobs car and bind Bob to have to clean my driveway!
Bob:Not again! I was just bound to wash your driveway last week!

ask.com/wiki/Binding_and_loosing

 

[EricFilmer]

The true church is the body of believers in Christ (John 3:16). They are His sheep.

Matthew 16:13-23

…Verse 19: Still talking with the disciples, He gives them the keys, a metaphor meaning “power and authority of various kinds”, to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

…The keys were given to ALL the disciples.

A Challenge I Have for You:
The Church of Christ officially teaches that baptism with water is necessary for the remission of sins. Seeing as they are members of the Body of Christ (and therefore, according to you, have the power to bind and loose), do you believe their position is doctrinally binding?

But on the other hand, many fundamental Christians believe that water baptism is not necessary for the remission of sins. So do you believe that the fundamentalist position is the one that is doctrinally binding?

(Here is a video clip of representatives from both sides debating this on the John Ankerberg Show, with both sides backing up their positions with Scripture)

If you believe that both positions are doctrinally binding, then clearly explain how two contradictory positions can both be true at the same time.

If you believe that one position is true and the other is false, then clearly explain how the side you disagreed with was able to teach a false doctrine despite having the power to bind and loose.

 

[David]

I am getting the idea that Protestants are avoiding this question.

Why do you think Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter?

Peace
David

 

[ESMDHokie77]

uhhh the guy who was renamed to rock!

pretty straigh forward.

 

[steve_b]

For the millionth time, who is the ROCK of Matthew 16:18? It appears that the claim of being the so-called ‘true church’ rests solely on the legs of the argument that Peter is… unless, of course, you’re mormon.

Before Simon said a word, Jesus said Simon is going to be the Rock.

Jn 1:42 "Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” Κηφᾶς Kēphas, masculine noun] = Rock
s:

Matthew 16:13-23

Verse 13: Jesus is talking with the disciples (plural), not just Peter.
Verse 14: In answer to His question, it is stated, “they said…” (disciples - plural). All together in chorus or one at a time? One at a time makes more sense.
Verse 15: Jesus spoke again saying “unto them” (disciples - plural), “whom say ye” (disciples - plural)

vs 13-15 is plural.
vs 16-19 is singular
vs 20-23 back to plural
s:

Verse 16: Peter (Petros - masculine meaning rock or stone) answered, “Christ, Son of the Living God.”
Verse 17: Jesus states that Peter didn’t come up with it on his own, but by God.
Verse 18: Peter said Jesus was the Christ earlier, and now Jesus says he is Peter, and that "upon this rock (Petra - feminine for rock)…meaning His Gospel.

1. • the noun “Gospel” in scripture is εὐαγγέλιον = neuter. not masculine, not feminine.
   • following your thinking, since Petra is a feminine noun, then continuing with your thought process, Petra can’t be Jesus or Peter, because they are both males.
   seems you need to rethink your analysis.
   s:
   

   Verse 19: Still talking with the disciples, He gives them the keys, a metaphor meaning “power and authority of various kinds”, to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

   vs 16-19, is singular.
   • Peter said you are the Christ son of the living God. Mt 16:16 that’s singular
   • Jesus said, Blessed art thou, εἶ ei, 2nd person singular] Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [Mt 16:17] that’s singular
   • I say unto you σοί soi 2nd person singular] you are Rock Mt 16:18
   • I will give unto you σοί soi 2nd person singular] the keys to the kingdom Mt 16:19
   Mt 16:20 returns to plural
   
   Q’s:
   • When Jesus said, blessed are you Simon bar Jona, flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. why did Jesus make this a big deal with Peter when the others back in Mt14:32-33 said pretty much the same thing?
   • Who did God pick from the beginning even before his profession? Petros or Petra? Jn 1:42 "Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” Κηφᾶς Kēphas, masculine noun] = Rock
   Peter ALONE is the object. If someone wants to say Petra is Peter’s faith, not Peter, I say Peter and his faith are one. You can’t seperate them. Peter received the keys, and the power to bind and loose in the kingdom.
   
   also
   
   Keys are different from binding and loosing. Keys are given to one person, the chief steward under the king. [Is 22:22…] Peter not only received the keys, but also to bind and loose. The others received the power to bind and loose later [Mt 18:18…], but only Peter received the keys. With those keys he can bind and loose universally, and bind what the others loose and loose what they bind,
   s:
   

   Verse 20: Still talking to the disciples - plural, not just Peter

   v20 the dialogue turns back to plural from singular.
   s:
   

   Verse 21: Still talking to the disciples - plural, not just Peter
   Verse 22: Peter rebukes Christ (now possessed by satan)
   Verse 23: Jesus directly calls Peter, satan.

   Satan doesn’t possess Peter. As Jesus told the apostles in the upper room, Satan has asked to sift them like wheat [Lk 22:31…]. Peter was the first to get sifted.
   s:
   

   The keys were given to ALL the disciples. I hardly think that Jesus would address the brand new pope as satan, or even allow him to be possessed. What a start to the papacy that would be.

   • Peter alone received the keys.
   • He didn’t get possessed.
   s:
   

   As a typical poster would say…that CLEARLY shows the truth…in English and in Greek. In I Peter 2:4-8, Peter describes Christ as a rock or cornerstone.
   
   P r e t t y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d

   You got just about everything wrong.

 

[pablope]

I am getting the idea that Protestants are avoiding this question.

Why do you think Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter?

Peace
David

:sad_yes: Unfortunately, our friend was banned to soon for him to answer…

 

[DavidFilmer]

For the benefit of those who have participated in this discussion (and those who might feel so inclined), in case you have not noticed…

The OP has been banned by a moderator. The OP is thus unable to respond.

I suggest we all abandon this thread, and await the next occasion to respond to this same topic. Which ought to happen in a day or two. It’s not like this is the first time anyone on CAF has seen a challenge (including this same tired old challenge) to the Catholic intrepretation of Matt 16 (and Matt 18). Although I think everyone has done a really good job of presenting overwhelming evidence for the Catholic position, for the billionith time.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)