Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ chose a specific location to announce He was building His Church, Caesarea Philippi.

Originally, Caesarea Philippi was named Panion, which is the City of Pan. Pan was the Greek God of shepherds and flocks, among other things.

Below is something a friend of mine wrote on another forum and it articulates it much better than I can.

**The incident in Matthew took place at Caesarea Philippi, so named by Herod Philip. However, it was originally Panion, the city of Pan…dedicated to the Greek god Pan. The mountain where Christ was transfigured was above the spot where there remains, to this day, a site honoring Pan, who was, at that time, considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. Pan’s essence was sexual and leaned toward depravity, i.e., to Christians, it represents the power of evil. (Remember that with the exchange immediately following Christ’s proclamation!) The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs.

Why this spot? Why, of all the places to which Jesus journeyed, would he choose (and don’t think it wasn’t chosen!) a place so antithetical to the Kingdom of God? Obviously, because Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom. And even the gates of hell (a site so named in a niche in the same mountain, which some claim to be the “abyss”) will not prevail over that Kingdom!

But the Kingdom is to be established in the “now” of time, in order for man to live a life of genuine holiness through which he may enter into the eternal Kingdom. Hence, a kingdom needs a King – the King of Kings. However, when the King, established by God through David, is absent from the physical kingdom, it cannot be left unattended. Hence, the keeper of the keys, the “prime minister” or “vicar”, is charged with the full authority of the king over all his lands, peoples, and possessions. He can make law or repeal it. He can make any decisions the King would make. And he is responsible to the King for every action he takes.

The “short” form of my position on Matthew 16:

1. The “petros/petra” issue would not have occurred, since Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic, wherein there is ONE word form: Kepha.

1. A change in name in Scripture ALWAYS came with a significant change in stature and responsibility. It wasn’t a “whim” of Christ’s to change Simon’s name to Peter. And we know that change was real, as it’s referred to throughout the NT. What is the significance of the name change, if not to designate Peter as the primate over all the followers of Christ? Note that whenever a name change was made in the OT, there was an explanation for it – Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed. Likewise, Simon becomes Peter because upon his strength in faith the sacred community of the faithful, the Church, would be founded.

1. The keeper of the keys is not simply noted in Isaiah. 1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys. The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1. The throne of David was considered by Jews to be the throne of God. (Ref. 1Chron 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of lithos
   lee’-thos
   Apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively): - (mill-, stumbling-) stone.
   David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

1. The keeper of the keys is, therefore, the Lord’s vicar, who occupies the earthly throne until Christ returns.**

The Petros issue, my friend brings up, has been discussed by Protestants who claim Petros means ‘little rock’, and it does. Petra in Greek means mass of rock. They argue that if Christ had meant to build His Church upon Peter, He would have named Him Petra. The problem here lays with the times and gender nouns. That is Matthew chose Petros, which is in the masculine and Petra is feminine. It’s similar to the Spanish language where you have gender nouns, for example el gato is masculine for cat and la gata is feminine for cat. Matthew could not have referred to Peter as feminine, especially in those times. But going beyond the gender nouns, as my friend points out, Christ spoke primarily Aramaic, where there is one word for rock and that is ‘Kepha’.

**Πέτρος
Petros
pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock.

πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas’
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.**

I hope I have provided enough foundation for a discussion. I have scriptures and writings of the early Church fathers that support the Catholic view of Peter being the rock on which Christ built His Church, and will share those as the discussion progresses.

 

[PJM]

***Well done

Peter in Greek has a gender bias [per Strong’s Concordence]

Petra is femine gender while “Petros”, which Christ used is male gender.

“petra” also means pebbles BUT “petros” means “ROCK”

Christ also refers to Simon-Peter as “Cephas”

Cephas [N] [H] a Syriac surname given by Christ to Simon ( John 1:42 ), meaning “rock.” The Greeks

---

Rock refers to the “foundation” of which Christ is the Cournerstone, while the 'foundation" that which is to be built upon is Peter…

John 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I singular] tell you, you are Peter, [singular] **and on this rock [singular] I will build my [singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. **[singular] **19 I **[God singular] **will give you **singular] **the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you **[singular] **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

**Eph. 2:19 **“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, **[singular] **built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; **[singular] **in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Lib_Christian]

Here’s one problem. Christ also told the Apostles the greatest was the least among them. So even if Peter was the rock and not what Peter said about Christ being the Son of God, the papacy has evolved to a far greater authority than Christ would have intended.

Is there even a mention of apostolic succession in Scripture? Let alone the serious sins committed by the hierarchy. Human yes. But as an example, to the degree pedophilia was covered up, difficult to see how they could still represent Christ’s Church.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

John 10:16

15* When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16* A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

John 21:15-17

One who tends and feeds sheep is by definition their shepherd.

 

[Abenadar]

Here’s one problem. Christ also told the Apostles the greatest was the least among them. So even if Peter was the rock and not what Peter said about Christ being the Son of God, the papacy has evolved to a far greater authority than Christ would have intended.

Christ intended to have a hierarchical church with an earthly head. The papacy, then and now, is the head of the Church on earth, and has no more or less spiritual authority than Christ first gave to Peter.

Is there even a mention of apostolic succession in Scripture?

Just read the first chapter of The Acts of the Apostles. Somebody needed to replace Judas, so they found a replacement…Of course as the Church grew it was necessary to expand the number from 12 to whatever was necessary to govern the Church.

Let alone the serious sins committed by the hierarchy. Human yes. But as an example, to the degree pedophilia was covered up, difficult to see how they could still represent Christ’s Church.

Up until the time of Christ’s crucifixion, the Lord maintained that the people still obey the legitimate authority as established by God, aka the Pharisees, did he not? The phrase was basically “do as they say, but not as they do”. In matters of faith, the Pharisees still had the authority, regardless of how weak and evil an example many of them undoubtedly were.

As an aside…Considering that the child sexual abuse in public schools has been and still is far, far worse than in the Church, do teachers cease to be educational representatives of school districs? Should students then ignore what the teachers are actually teaching them in class???

 

[Jerok]

Here’s one problem. Christ also told the Apostles the greatest was the least among them. So even if Peter was the rock and not what Peter said about Christ being the Son of God, the papacy has evolved to a far greater authority than Christ would have intended.

Is there even a mention of apostolic succession in Scripture? Let alone the serious sins committed by the hierarchy. Human yes. But as an example, to the degree pedophilia was covered up, difficult to see how they could still represent Christ’s Church.

The Pope is the servant of the people, the servant of the servants of God. He is working FOR us, and we listen as he is the one who can infallibly give doctrines at certain times, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Would you have our clergymen not give definitive answers about the faith? That would create many splits and schisms within the church and… we’d all be Protestant!

Also, how do YOU know what Christ intended… did he tell you? Well he sure told Peter, and Peter told the next guy, who told the next guy… all the way down until today! It’s a wonderful thing that you’re protesting against.

 

[tweetymom]

Peter’s faith is the rock and Jesus is my rock.

 

[Javl]

There is an Orthodox Jew that I know of who is a serious student of scripture. In His studies he came to the “irrevocable conclusion” that Jesus is the Messiah as prophesied in scripture. From that he converted to Christianity and became a Catholic because according to scripture the Catholic Church is the Church the Jesus built on Peter. In his studies ( he reads writes and speaks Aramaic and Hebrew ) he says that Jesus commisioned Peter to lead His Church and gave him the authority to do so by giving Peter the Keys to His Kingdom and the authority to forgive sins and to bind and loose. He continues with his studies and still considers himself Orthodox although a Catholic.

You can visit www.hebrewcatholic.com ( There is a thread in regards to this website ) to learn about Jews who convert to Catholicism, and why.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter’s faith is the rock and Jesus is my rock.

Would you please elaborate on that statement. I don’t understand how Peter’s faith received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and I really don’t understand how Peter’s faith received the authority to bind and loose on earth with a promise it would be bound and loosed in heaven.

 

[onenow1]

I hope I have provided enough foundation for a discussion. I have scriptures and writings of the early Church fathers that support the Catholic view of Peter being the rock on which Christ built His Church, and will share those as the discussion progresses.

I would add that Jesus knew the Apostles would die some day and certainly would have the apostles establish a hierarchy, through the Holy Spirit. As attested to in Acts of the Apostles.

Peace,God Bless
onenow1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s one problem. Christ also told the Apostles the greatest was the least among them. So even if Peter was the rock and not what Peter said about Christ being the Son of God, the papacy has evolved to a far greater authority than Christ would have intended.

Is there even a mention of apostolic succession in Scripture? Let alone the serious sins committed by the hierarchy. Human yes. But as an example, to the degree pedophilia was covered up, difficult to see how they could still represent Christ’s Church.

I need you to elaborate as well Lib. How does a statement receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven and how does a statement receive authority to bind and loose with a promise it would be bound and loosed in heaven?

As for how large Catholicism is, do you think Christ intended it to be a small Church and not reach everyone?

Read Acts 1, It certainly appears Peter saw the need to replace Judas, which is Apostolic succession.

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.
Act 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Act 1:18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Lastly, your pedophilia statement has nothing to do with this discussion and appears to be an ad hominem statement intended to agitate and inflame Catholics. All men are sinners and pedophilia crosses all ecomonic classes, cultures and religions. Please stay with the discussion at hand and be warned, I will report comments such as that in the future. If you wish to discuss that you feel Christ’s Church failed, even though he said, ‘even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’, please start another thread with that title. I’m sure you’ll get plenty of responses.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would add that Jesus knew the Apostles would die some day and certainly would have the apostles establish a hierarchy, through the Holy Spirit. As attested to in Acts of the Apostles.

Peace,God Bless
onenow1

Very good point onenow1. He certainly was speaking to His Church when He stated He’d be with them until the consummation of the world, knowing that all Apostles would eventually die and not be here at the consummation.

 

[Lib_Christian]

First of all, the issue of a sinning hierarchy was not meant to inflame and I am sorry you took it that way. But it is very much related to the discussion at hand. If we are going to discuss Peter, infallibilty, and apostolic succession, the failures of the hierarchy are very much related to the discussion. I realize however it is an uncomfortable issue for many Catholics. So I won’t lose any sleep over your threat to have me banned if you feel the need to. It’s a good way to make the community smaller I guess. Which btw no I don’t believe Christ wanted a smaller, purer church…

The Christ I follow is not that exclusive and the earliest church communities were not without differences. Yet flourished nonetheless. A bit of history: Power grew. It was not until later when structure and male dominated power began to reign greater and greater. Btw before anyone says that was meant to inflame or agitate, it was not. Just a fact. Yes the 12 Apostles were men. But male domination was a custom of the times. Much as women could not speak in church and needed to cover their heads. The Church today thankfully does not adhere to that custom today and women speak freely in church today with uncovered heads. Anyway as just one example, in the 400s AD another bishop challenged the Pope and by the Roman emperor’s decree the Pope was given more power.

Of course much earlier Paul challenged and corrected Peter.

And as I already explained, when Christ tells the Apostles the greatest must make himself the least, then yes I believe that is Christ telling not only me but all of his followers that he did not mean for such an infalliible and powerful papacy to develop.

In fact the early believers expected Christ to come again soon. Even perhaps in their lifetimes. So there would not have been a need for them to believe in a lengthy apostolic succession.

But the gates of hell will not prevail. Read about false teachers and how we will know them by their fruits. Not only by what they say but by what they do. Blind faith may not be the best prescription.

Nevertheless Christ’s church prevails. Perhaps thru reform, perhaps thru new teachers. But it nevertheless prevails.

I thought CF was for all of us, practicing Catholics, non practicing, and others of any faith to discuss what we each believe as truth at wherever we are on our walks with Christ today. We don’t have to agree but that’s what discussion is all about it seems to me, as we learn about what we each believe as truth, and most importantly hopefully grow in our love and tolerance for one another. Each as a child of God. But perhaps not. So peace and may God bless each of us.

 

[Javl]

I will never understand why some take some of scripture symbolicly when it is evident that it is to be taken literally, and then take some of scripture literally when it is evident that it is symbolic. This, private interpretation, and sola scriptura has led to the splintering of the Church into myriads of denominations, none of which agree with any other.

But, I thank God for the Catholic Church. It alone has remained steadfast to the teachings of Christ for these past 2000 years. It alone has the fulness of truth, and it alone has the full authority given it by Christ. Many will disagree and argue this, but the facts are evident and to try to prove otherwise is just an exercise in futility.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[AmateurPianist]

Here is the problem.

In the English language this passage is wonderfully ambiguous. I, from reading this passage, can not determine with certainty what this rock is.

Some Protestants will point to the passage where Jesus is the cornerstone as a prooftext that this can not be Peter. However, since rock is clearly a metaphor, this prooftext proves nothing. It is certainly possible that Jesus can be the rock in one metaphorical sense while Peter can be the rock in another metaphorical sense.

So you have to turn to the original languages. And from my perspective, experts in the original languages disagree on this passage. So then it reduces to which expert do you choose to believe.

However, even if Peter is the rock in this passage (which is possible), that is the only conclusion that one may safely draw. You still have to make several leaps before you can safely conclude that the Catholic church of today, headed by the Pope in Rome, is exclusively the church of Jesus Christ.

 

[tweetymom]

First of all, the issue of a sinning hierarchy was not meant to inflame and I am sorry you took it that way. But it is very much related to the discussion at hand. If we are going to discuss Peter, infallibilty, and apostolic succession, the failures of the hierarchy are very much related to the discussion. I realize however it is an uncomfortable issue for many Catholics. So I won’t lose any sleep over your threat to have me banned if you feel the need to. It’s a good way to make the community smaller I guess. Which btw no I don’t believe Christ wanted a smaller, purer church…

The Christ I follow is not that exclusive and the earliest church communities were not without differences. Yet flourished nonetheless. A bit of history: Power grew. It was not until later when structure and male dominated power began to reign greater and greater. Btw before anyone says that was meant to inflame or agitate, it was not. Just a fact. Yes the 12 Apostles were men. But male domination was a custom of the times. Much as women could not speak in church and needed to cover their heads. The Church today thankfully does not adhere to that custom today and women speak freely in church today with uncovered heads. Anyway as just one example, in the 400s AD another bishop challenged the Pope and by the Roman emperor’s decree the Pope was given more power.

Of course much earlier Paul challenged and corrected Peter.

And as I already explained, when Christ tells the Apostles the greatest must make himself the least, then yes I believe that is Christ telling not only me but all of his followers that he did not mean for such an infalliible and powerful papacy to develop.

In fact the early believers expected Christ to come again soon. Even perhaps in their lifetimes. So there would not have been a need for them to believe in a lengthy apostolic succession.

But the gates of hell will not prevail. Read about false teachers and how we will know them by their fruits. Not only by what they say but by what they do. Blind faith may not be the best prescription.

Nevertheless Christ’s church prevails. Perhaps thru reform, perhaps thru new teachers. But it nevertheless prevails.

I thought CF was for all of us, practicing Catholics, non practicing, and others of any faith to discuss what we each believe as truth at wherever we are on our walks with Christ today. We don’t have to agree but that’s what discussion is all about it seems to me, as we learn about what we each believe as truth, and most importantly hopefully grow in our love and tolerance for one another. Each as a child of God. But perhaps not. So peace and may God bless each of us.

It is for all of us and a great avenue for people of all faiths and beliefs to come together and have discussions in love. Amen we don’t have to agree but love and tolerance should always be at the helm.I am sorry to say that sometimes I have been pushed to the limit and have responded in anger, but I am human like everyone else.

I agree with your posts and find them to be full of love for our Lord. Peace Brother.

 

[tweetymom]

Here is the problem.

In the English language this passage is wonderfully ambiguous. I, from reading this passage, can not determine with certainty what this rock is.

Some Protestants will point to the passage where Jesus is the cornerstone as a prooftext that this can not be Peter. However, since rock is clearly a metaphor, this prooftext proves nothing. It is certainly possible that Jesus can be the rock in one metaphorical sense while Peter can be the rock in another metaphorical sense.

So you have to turn to the original languages. And from my perspective, experts in the original languages disagree on this passage. So then it reduces to which expert do you choose to believe.

However, even if Peter is the rock in this passage (which is possible), that is the only conclusion that one may safely draw. You still have to make several leaps before you can safely conclude that the Catholic church of today, headed by the Pope in Rome, is exclusively the church of Jesus Christ.

Amen

 

[rovimax]

First of all, the issue of a sinning hierarchy was not meant to inflame and I am sorry you took it that way. But it is very much related to the discussion at hand. If we are going to discuss Peter, infallibilty, and apostolic succession, the failures of the hierarchy are very much related to the discussion. I realize however it is an uncomfortable issue for many Catholics. So I won’t lose any sleep over your threat to have me banned if you feel the need to. It’s a good way to make the community smaller I guess. Which btw no I don’t believe Christ wanted a smaller, purer church…

The Christ I follow is not that exclusive and the earliest church communities were not without differences. Yet flourished nonetheless. A bit of history: Power grew. It was not until later when structure and male dominated power began to reign greater and greater. Btw before anyone says that was meant to inflame or agitate, it was not. Just a fact. Yes the 12 Apostles were men. But male domination was a custom of the times. Much as women could not speak in church and needed to cover their heads. The Church today thankfully does not adhere to that custom today and women speak freely in church today with uncovered heads. Anyway as just one example, in the 400s AD another bishop challenged the Pope and by the Roman emperor’s decree the Pope was given more power.

Of course much earlier Paul challenged and corrected Peter.

And as I already explained, when Christ tells the Apostles the greatest must make himself the least, then yes I believe that is Christ telling not only me but all of his followers that he did not mean for such an infalliible and powerful papacy to develop.

In fact the early believers expected Christ to come again soon. Even perhaps in their lifetimes. So there would not have been a need for them to believe in a lengthy apostolic succession.

But the gates of hell will not prevail. Read about false teachers and how we will know them by their fruits. Not only by what they say but by what they do. Blind faith may not be the best prescription.

Nevertheless Christ’s church prevails. Perhaps thru reform, perhaps thru new teachers. But it nevertheless prevails.

I thought CF was for all of us, practicing Catholics, non practicing, and others of any faith to discuss what we each believe as truth at wherever we are on our walks with Christ today. We don’t have to agree but that’s what discussion is all about it seems to me, as we learn about what we each believe as truth, and most importantly hopefully grow in our love and tolerance for one another. Each as a child of God. But perhaps not. So peace and may God bless each of us.

‘’ The Sinning Hiearchy… We must remember that everyone is a sinner. catholics never said that the Pope is impeccable. The Pope is infallible in regards to defining faith and morals. Peter was a sinner and he was considered by the Catholic Church to be the first Pope. Is he infallible? YES! We believed in 1Peter and 2Peter aren’t we? During that time when he wrote his epistles, he was infallible because he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

‘‘The Christ I follow…’’ How many Christs do we have? You’re already dividing Christ. There is only one Christ. The problem is everyone has his own opinion and interpretation of scripture how to follow Christ. Everyone wants Christ to be in accordance with his/her own convenience. Everyone wants to have his/her own translation of the Bible.

We should ask ourselves are we really following Christ in His own terms or are we blind worshippers following our own terms? We should go to the Church built upon the Rock that still standing, where the gates of hell shall not prevail.

 

[onenow1]

However, even if Peter is the rock in this passage (which is possible), that is the only conclusion that one may safely draw. You still have to make several leaps before you can safely conclude that the Catholic church of today, headed by the Pope in Rome, is exclusively the church of Jesus Christ.

Why is it not possible, for there to be two rocks ?

Peace,onenow1

 

[rovimax]

Here is the problem.

In the English language this passage is wonderfully ambiguous. I, from reading this passage, can not determine with certainty what this rock is.

Some Protestants will point to the passage where Jesus is the cornerstone as a prooftext that this can not be Peter. However, since rock is clearly a metaphor, this prooftext proves nothing. It is certainly possible that Jesus can be the rock in one metaphorical sense while Peter can be the rock in another metaphorical sense.

So you have to turn to the original languages. And from my perspective, experts in the original languages disagree on this passage. So then it reduces to which expert do you choose to believe.

However, even if Peter is the rock in this passage (which is possible), that is the only conclusion that one may safely draw. You still have to make several leaps before you can safely conclude that the Catholic church of today, headed by the Pope in Rome, is exclusively the church of Jesus Christ.

Did you ever hear any Church claimed that they were the Church Jesus Christ established? How can they…they know their church can’t be because they were established during the 16th century. The gates of hell must prevail against the church so they can justify their church’s existence.

The discussion in Mat 16 is not difficult to understand if only if it will be look upon without prejudice. [SIGN]Peace be with you[/SIGN]