Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[tweetymom]

So, by your own definition

But, stopping those two things from meeting is not stopping life?!

Did I answer your question or not I said that stopping them from meeting is not stopping life period.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Except, In John 21
Jesus said to Simon Peter,1) “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” …2) "Simon, son of John, do you love Me? 3) “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?”

Elsewhere long after Matthew 16 Jesus call Him Simon, Simon Peter and Simon Simon, which all mean Peter. Where exactly is that real name change? Maybe Peter lost his salvation?

Then why did the Lord ask Peter to tend His sheep 3 times?

I’m sorry, but yours is such a twist of scriptures to fit a belief.

 

[Teneas]

Did I answer your question or not I said that stopping them from meeting is not stopping life period.

You sorta did to be honest. You said that life begins when those two things meet, but that birth control stops those two things from meeting, therefore it’s not stopping life.

That makes sense to you?

 

[tweetymom]

You sorta did to be honest. You said that life begins when those two things meet, but that birth control stops those two things from meeting, therefore it’s not stopping life.

That makes sense to you?

yes i did

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If it is not explicit or very implicit, we don’t add. So we don’t add “the use of” or “non use of birth control” nor do we add the perpetual virginity, when the explicit evidence is she had other children. Birth control is an issue of the conscience unless it was illegal because we are commanded to obey government unless it is a direct violation of God’s Word. An example would be abortion, it is legal, but it is murder, therefore God’s law overides man’s law. If your conscience says it is wrong, then don’t do it and no one should judge you for that decision and vice versa. I understand the specific issue with Tweety because of the Catholic rules against it, but I have never met a Catholic yet that did not pick and choose. I’m not saying there aren’t any, just not any i have met and known.

Oh yes, saying birth control is allowable is adding to scriptures, completely. Scriptures does speak of a virgin birth, NOWHERE does it speak of birth control in an acceptable light.

It’s quite the opposite. Protestests have picked and chosen what they prefer to believe. It’s fitting scriptures to a theology as opposed to fitting a theology to scriptures.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter 156 times Paul 160 times

Did you count the times he was referred too as Simon?

And with all the times Paul’s name was mentioned, it still doesn’t add up to more than Peter when you add all the other Apostle’s names to Pauls…

 

[Teneas]

yes i did

Um…not even sure how to respond to that one. So I will leave it that you are a Catholic that believes birth control is not a sin, even though your very own church tells you otherwise. That stopping the two things needed to make a life from joining is not stopping life.

Think that about sums up what you believe…Good luck with that.

 

[MacDaddy]

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Everyone has successors in some manner or another, but where does the idea of primacy actually come from? Why? Is God a respecter of Persons? Is He one to play favorites? Not according to His own words. Ironically it was the Holy Spirit working through the mouth and hand of Peter.

34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand {now} that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. - Acts 10:34-43

partiality: “prosōpolēmptēs”- one who discriminates, the root is used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one’s judgment and treatment of men. It is men that show partiality and is considered sin in the eyes of God according to what is written:

From God to man via James and the Holy Spirit:
James 2:8-13
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. 9 But **if you show partiality, you are committing sin **{and} are convicted by the law as transgressors.

So as I said before; Primacy, which is partiality is considered sin by God.
Primacy: The state of being first in importance.

Primacy (Latin primatus, primus, first).
The supreme episcopal jurisdiction of the pope as pastor and governor of the Universal Church.

One commentator, Coffman-who I disagree with quite often, put it this way “The law here is not the Old Testament law as such, but the whole spirit (of Christ) which is contrary to partiality.”

“For the Lord your God is the God of Gods and Lord of Lords, the great, the mighty and the awesome God who does not show partiality.”

James say it again in verse 1 of chapter 2:
1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with {an attitude of} personal favoritism.

 

[MacDaddy]

People have been stating all they need is the Bible, some of whom have also stated that there was no authority given to anyone by Christ. Isn’t private interpretation of scriptures, with the authority to tell everyone else their interpretation is wrong, assuming an authority similar to what they reject?

Would that not depend on the authority of the interpreter, which Scripture tells us where it comes from and with whom it is given, such as Christians for example.

 

[MacDaddy]

I’ve never been able to get a direct answer to my question. I’ve asked it of "sola scriptura " adherents who say the Peter is not the rock, but Jesus is, and have yet to receive some sort of satisfactory answer. Oh, well. I’ll just keep trying. No one will admit they’re wrong.

PX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I have answered it twice, but did not meet the standard of “satisfaction”. Could there be a problem with the standard? What is the standard?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Everyone has successors in some manner or another, but where does the idea of primacy actually come from? Why? Is God a respecter of Persons? Is He one to play favorites? Not according to His own words. Ironically it was the Holy Spirit working through the mouth and hand of Peter.

34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand {now} that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. - Acts 10:34-43

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Is that a contradiction according to what you’re trying to say?

See, I understand the necessity of taking away from Peter being the rock on which Christ built His Church. Should that be true, what position does it put the Protestant Churches in?

Christ said, ‘And I say to THEE: That THOU…’ He did not say, ‘that which you said…’ or ‘your faith…’ He was speaking to Peter when He said He would build His Church.

There’s just only so much twisting that can be done with something as clear as this is…

 

[AmateurPianist]

I asked a question a few pages back that sort of got buried and not answered.

I am missing something from the original premise here. Are you saying that the Scripture in Matthew 16 is so clear that I should be able to pick up my New American Standard Bible, read Matthew 16, and conclude that Peter is the Rock in this passage? If not, what other information do I need?

 

[MacDaddy]

So what’s your point here Joe?? Peter may be a shepherd but let’s look carefully at what Peter himself states in his first letter:

5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, [1] not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; [2] not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the **chief Shepherd **appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

So Peter never identifies himself as being any supreme leader, just a fellow Elder. He then exhorts other Elders to shepherd their flock. So it stands to reason that Peter is calling other Elders sheherds but then identifies Christ as the Chief Shepherd. Where in this text do we see Peter at all exercising authority?

I pointed to James 2 where God does not show favortism and considers it a sin to do so.
But if you show partiality, you are committing sin {and} are convicted by the law as transgressors.
And Peter said this:
Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand {now} that God is not one to show partiality, Ac 10:34

**Romans 2:11 For there is no partiality with God. **

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. - Paul in Galatians

Eph 2 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Paul instructing Timothy in the Pastoral Epistle: I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of {His} chosen angels, to maintain these {principles} without bias, doing nothing in a {spirit of} partiality. - That is serious business, look at the forcefulness of the instruction and before all of the Heavenly hosts…WOW!

Don’t we all know this already; those that are SS for good reason? I have digested a bunch of catechism, ordering a hard copy of it, reading about saints, which is very confusing because one cannot know for sure they are saved, but then can declare people with very sketchy histories as saints, not all, but many - just confounds my brain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Would that not depend on the authority of the interpreter, which Scripture tells us where it comes from and with whom it is given, such as Christians for example.

Do you think Catholics are not Christians?

Please provide the scriptures that gives any individual authority to interpret scriptures for themselves…you and I both know it’s not in the Bible. In fact, the inspired word of God states that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church, instead of scriptures.

The Old Testament gives example of a magisterium, or authority, necessary to interpret the scriptures for the people in Nehemiah 8.

Where do you receive your authority to intepret scriptures and where do you receive authority to declare another’s interpretation incorrect?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I asked a question a few pages back that sort of got buried and not answered.

I am missing something from the original premise here. Are you saying that the Scripture in Matthew 16 is so clear that I should be able to pick up my New American Standard Bible, read Matthew 16, and conclude that Peter is the Rock in this passage? If not, what other information do I need?

I’m not familiar with the New American Standard, but I have provided the passage from the Douay-Rheims and the Greek interlinear and it seems clear enough.

Here are several versions:

**Mat 16:18

(DRB) 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.

(Etheridge) Also I say unto thee, that thou art Kipha, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of Sheul shall not prevail against her.

(IGNT+) καγωG2504 δεG1161 AND I ALSO σοιG4671 TO THEE λεγωG3004 [G5719] SAY, οτιG3754 THAT συG4771 THOU ειG1488 [G5748] ART πετροςG4074 PETER, καιG2532 AND επιG1909 ON ταυτηG3778 τηG3588 THIS πετραG4073 ROCK οικοδομησωG3618 [G5692] I WILL BUILD μουG3450 τηνG3588 MY εκκλησιανG1577 ASSEMBLY, καιG2532 AND πυλαιG4439 GATES αδουG86 ουG3756 OF HADES κατισχυσουσινG2729 [G5692] SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST αυτηςG846 IT.

(KJV+) AndG1161 I say alsoG2504 G3004 unto thee,G4671 ThatG3754 thouG4771 artG1488 Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073 I will buildG3618 myG3450 church;G1577 andG2532 the gatesG4439 of hellG86 shall notG3756 prevail againstG2729 it.G846

(KJVA) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Murdock) Also I say to thee, that thou art Cephas: and upon this rock, I will build my church: and the gates of death shall not triumph over it.

(NJB) So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.

(RSV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

(Vulgate) et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam**

ALL reference THEE and THOU, as opposed to the spin trying to be pushed here that it was Peter’s ‘statement’ or ‘faith’. Christ did not say, ‘what you SAID is rock…’ or ‘your FAITH is rock…’ He said, ‘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.’

No one has taken the time to explain how Christ could have given Peter’s ‘statement’ or ‘faith’ the keys to the kingdom of heaven with the power to bind and loose on earth with a promise it would also be bound and loosed in heaven.

 

[adrift]

Looking past this, numerous times Jesus referred to Peter as Simon Simon or Simon Peter, which is the same as saying Peter Peter since Simon means Peter, so where exactly is the name change?

The name Simon does not mean rock but to hear or listen. His name was changed from to hear or listen to Rock.
Mark 3:16

Simon, whom he named Peter

Simon, whom he named Peter: Mark indicates that Simon’s name was changed on this occasion. Peter is first in all lists of the apostles (Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13; cf 1 Cor 15:5-8).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The name Simon does not mean rock but to hear or listen. His name was changed from to hear or listen to Rock.
Mark 3:16

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.

 

[Teneas]

I asked a question a few pages back that sort of got buried and not answered.

I am missing something from the original premise here. Are you saying that the Scripture in Matthew 16 is so clear that I should be able to pick up my New American Standard Bible, read Matthew 16, and conclude that Peter is the Rock in this passage? If not, what other information do I need?

No, I doubt that anyone would read it and understand it without understanding the translation of the original text. You would have to either: 1. Been taught that it says that, and why, or 2. Researched on your own what the translation of Peter actually is.

I can’t imagine anyone opening up the Bible, reading that verse, and knowing right off what we believe it says.

 

[MacDaddy]

Then you should stick by it, and not jump back and forth. No where in the Bible does it say it is the sole authority. Nowhere.

“Man will not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” Jesus was SS - tell me where the mouth of God resides? The church is the pillar and support of what? The truth, God’s word is the truth. It does say it explicitly, just not in your vernacular.

It does plainly say in the Bible that the Church has the authority.

Verse please.

It does say “Thou shall not kill”

It doesn’t say the word Trinity. Therefore, with your line of reasoning, the Trinity does not exist.

Sola Scriptura is flawed.

The Bible is NOT the sole rule of Faith.
Example: 1 Timothy 3:15

The Trinity is very implicit all over Scripture with the best and clearest example of “in the Name (singular) of the 1)Father and of the 2)Son and of the 3)Holy Ghost”

SS is the only way, why? Where else has God spoken, which is now written.

**"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; **Jesus is SS and only quoted from the written word because He is the Word, not a church. The individual body is to protect that Word and exalt the Word to the glory of God.

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, - this is how all Christians are able to know the truth. Mono e’ mono (One on one)

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Paul was an SS man:
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
Summary: Jesus, Peter and Paul were all SS men. Moses was an SS man, David was an SS man

Doesn’t depend on if it was written at the time it was spoken orally, because whether orally or written, it is all comes from the mouth of God and we are blessed to have it in written form. No one can add to Gods mouth from God’s view point.

There is no rational reason to assume that any oral teaching is not contained in the written word, for the oral teachings as Peter indicated above were one in the same, which makes since because anytime oral teaching is spoken of in the Scripture; it is indictive that it already existed; therefore could not be created nor invented, which is why god probably warned about adding to or subtracting fro His word. Sounds reasonable to me, but I am a SS man because I don’t see any way possible to prove anything outside of His word that exists and I have been searching and have thus far not found anything.

 

[MacDaddy]

So, Jesus said he will build his church on the rock that he stood on huh?

Read the Scriptures and there you will know.