Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Teneas]

2 Pet 1:20 tells us no prophecy found in Scripture was put there by the prophets’s private interpretation but was revealed by God. It doesn’t say we can’t read Scripture for ourselves and determine what we believe.

2Tim 3:15-17, Douay Rheims 1899 edition:

15And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

So ok Scripture gives us all we need for salvation. We can read it and determine what or who we believe the rock is. There will be differences on what we come up with. That’s faith.

Yes, but if you are arguing for SS, then using those particular verses don’t help your cause at all. If you are arguing for Sola Scriptura that is…wanna know why?..kk I will tell you:

Paul is talking about the OT scriptures!

On another note if you are admitting that -all- can interpret scriptures for themselves, which I think that is what you are admitting, then I concede the point, because I will expect you to do the same on every single piece of debate involving scripture. We will all be correct if individual interpretation is correct.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

re:Kepha

The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. **Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof **of the Catholic position

You can read it in Greek, Aramaic or English and the message is clear as articulated through this thread.

Matthew wrote in Greek which was the common language at the time. The Gospel authors ‘mixed’ Aramaic with Greek several times, the majority of time referencing something spoken by Christ.

Read what Paul called Peter in his letter to the Corinthians. (I am providing the verse as written in 9 versions of the Bible. The Etheridge and Murdock are English translations of the Aramaic.)

**1Co 1:12

(DRB) Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

(Etheridge) For this I say, that there are some of you who say, I am of Paulos; and some who say, I am of Apollo; and some who say, I am of Kipha; and some who say, I am of the Meshiha!

(IGNT+) λεγωG3004 [G5719] δεG1161 BUT I SAY τουτοG5124 THIS, οτιG3754 THAT εκαστοςG1538 EACH υμωνG5216 OF YOU λεγειG3004 [G5719] SAYS, εγωG1473 μενG3303 I ειμιG1510 [G5748] AM παυλουG3972 OF PAUL, εγωG1473 δεG1161 AND I απολλωG625 OF APOLLOS, εγωG1473 δεG1161 AND I κηφαG2786 OF CEPHAS, εγωG1473 δεG1161 AND I χριστουG5547 OF CHRIST

(KJV+) NowG1161 thisG5124 I say,G3004 thatG3754 every oneG1538 of youG5216 saith,G3004 IG1473 (G3303) amG1510 of Paul;G3972 andG1161 IG1473 of Apollos;G625 andG1161 IG1473 of Cephas;G2786 andG1161 IG1473 of Christ.G5547

(KJVA) Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

(Murdock) And this I state: That one of you saith, I am of Paul; and another saith, I am of Apollos; and another saith, I am of Cephas; and another saith, I am of Messiah.

(NJB) What I mean is this: every one of you is declaring, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’

(RSV) What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

(Vulgate) hoc autem dico quod unusquisque vestrum dicit ego quidem sum Pauli ego autem Apollo ego vero Cephae ego autem Christi**

Now see how Paul referred to Peter in 1 Corinthians 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 2:11 and 2:14.

But we should look at the first time Christ re-named Simon to ‘rock’, using Aramaic as written by John.

**Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter. **

As has been eplained a couple of times in this thread already, the Greek language used gender nouns. Petros was the masculine and Petra was the feminine. Matthew, for understandable reasons during those times, chose to refer to Peter in the masculine sense.

Either way, what else could the Lord have been saying He would have built His Church upon and giving the keys too? He plainly states, in all versions of the Bible I can find, ‘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." The Lord’s very next sentence was, ’ And I will give to THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever THOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’

 

[adrift]

re:Kepha

The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. **Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof **of the Catholic position

An Aramaic text is not necessary to understand that Jesus did not speak in Greek to his Apostles. It is logic than to understand that the word He used would not have been a Greek word but the word Kepha. So it is not proper to say that it cannot be pointed out that Jesus did not speak Greek.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, but if you are arguing for SS, then using those particular verses don’t help your cause at all. If you are arguing for Sola Scriptura that is…wanna know why?..kk I will tell you:

Paul is talking about the OT scriptures!

On another note if you are admitting that -all- can interpret scriptures for themselves, which I think that is what you are admitting, then I concede the point, because I will expect you to do the same on every single piece of debate involving scripture. We will all be correct if individual interpretation is correct.

You are correct Teneas. The reason they had known scriptures since their infancy was because those scriptures had been read to them in the synagogues or Temple. They memorized scriptures then because, scriptures were kept at the synagogues or Temple.

 

[tweetymom]

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.

Think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[tweetymom]

What Church is that because in the Catholic Church Peter is the rock. Scripture often does have more than one meaning. To say that the Rock was Peter’s faith is not incorrect but not complete either.

This is only partly the story. Quoting 135

I realize that you have eight years of indoctination that of which you cannot or will not let go.

By what authority do you claim this?
The Scripture says that His Church would loosen or bind and would be so in Heaven.

I know that what I am about to suggest will go against your pride but please do a CATHOLIC Bible study and learn wthat the Bible truly is.

Thank you been there done that and the Bible for me is the final word. Now if you choose to believe otherwise I do not condem you. God’s Grace be with you.

 

[adrift]

Thank you been there done that and the Bible for me is the final word. Now if you choose to believe otherwise I do not condem you. God’s Grace be with you.

If the Bible was truly the final word for you, than you would adhere to The Chruch that Jesus left to guide us. The truth is the Bible as the final word is YOUR interpretion of Scripture not what Scripture really says.

Someone else asked you to explain the name change. You did not answer. That is part of the Bible. If you have been there done that, does that mean you studied the Bible with Catholics for eight years? I don’t think your pride would let you admit that you wasted your time on a false Bible study and that you are ignorant on what the Bible says.

I don’t agree with those who say you are not Catholic. You do not believe in Catholic thought but that does not mean your not Catholic.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Sorry but Peters faith in Jesus is the rock. Jesus is my rock, not peter

Peter faith is the rock.

 

[onenow1]

Think you hit the nail on the head.

onenow1:

I believe so tweety.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

onenow1:

With my catholic glasses on I do not see any options in the above verse. It always goes back to the holder of the keys and the interpretation rendered the holder of the keys says fruitfulness is bound.

onenow1:

Here’s two interesting versest to dwell on.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed

onenow1:

It appears God’s plan has been aborted.

God Bless, onenow1

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

OK. It is as I thought. There is a dependency upon the original languages here. So either
(1) I have to be skilled in the original languages to understand this text (2) I have to rely upon somebody else.

So that means unless there are folks in this thread that are skilled in the original languages, everybody is relying upon somebody else for their interpretation of this Scripture.

So that means how I interpret this passage ultimately depends on whom I choose to provide the translation of this passage and whose spin I accept.

 

[RedBert]

after 6 years of Spanish : i do understand the gender point.

*** “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” ***

and if I may be frank with you , Francis, I also understand the Bible has dozens and dozens of word plays on names.
Shirley , you must know that.

But the main point is that the Bible NEVER contradicts the Bible :so if a word can have two meanings, you choose the meaning that is in harmony with the rest of the Bible

and now it become a simple Biblical question: Who is the Rock?

Deut. 32:3, “The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice.”

1 Sam. 22:2, “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge.”

Psalm 18:31, “And who is a rock, except our God.”

Isaiah 44:8, “Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none.”

Rom. 9:33, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).

 

[Teneas]

OK. It is as I thought. There is a dependency upon the original languages here. So either
(1) I have to be skilled in the original languages to understand this text (2) I have to rely upon somebody else.

So that means unless there are folks in this thread that are skilled in the original languages, everybody is relying upon somebody else for their interpretation of this Scripture.

So that means how I interpret this passage ultimately depends on whom I choose to provide the translation of this passage and whose spin I accept.

In a nut shell…yeah. It is one of the reasons we, as Catholics, believe we of a united Church. We rely upon the Church, early Church fathers, Magisterium, and our other leaders, to teach us the correct way to interpret. The CC, or RCC as others like to point out here, has the history dating back to Christ in this regard. They canonized the Bible, they decided, through the work of the Holy Spirit, what went into the Bible.

That being said, there are plenty of things that are left up in the air about our faith or belief that you are very free to form your own opinions about. For instance: Evolution or Creationism. The Church has no firm doctrine on this. We simply do not know. I could be wrong in that statement, but I don’t think I am.

 

[Lib_Christian]

Yes, but if you are arguing for SS, then using those particular verses don’t help your cause at all. If you are arguing for Sola Scriptura that is…wanna know why?..kk I will tell you:

Paul is talking about the OT scriptures!

On another note if you are admitting that -all- can interpret scriptures for themselves, which I think that is what you are admitting, then I concede the point, because I will expect you to do the same on every single piece of debate involving scripture. We will all be correct if individual interpretation is correct.

Thank you. Yes God understands where we each are in our walks and what understanding we each have discerned to this point. Scripture is Scripture to me. NT included since I’ve had it since my infancy. Peace and God bless each of us on our journeys.

 

[Lib_Christian]

I don’t agree with those who say you are not Catholic. You do not believe in Catholic thought but that does not mean your not Catholic.

:yup: :clapping:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

after 6 years of Spanish : i do understand the gender point.

*** “You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie.” ***

and if I may be frank with you , Francis, I also understand the Bible has dozens and dozens of word plays on names.
Shirley , you must know that.

But the main point is that the Bible NEVER contradicts the Bible :so if a word can have two meanings, you choose the meaning that is in harmony with the rest of the Bible

and now it become a simple Biblical question: Who is the Rock?

Deut. 32:3, “The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice.”

1 Sam. 22:2, “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge.”

Psalm 18:31, “And who is a rock, except our God.”

Isaiah 44:8, “Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none.”

Rom. 9:33, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3:11).

So you think Christ built a Church upon himself and gave himself the keys to the kingdom of heaven and gave himself the authority to bind and loose on earth and promised to make it so in heaven by speaking directly to Peter using the terms ‘thee’ and ‘thou’?

Christ was the cornerstone. It takes absolutely nothing from Him for Him to choose a leader over His Church.

**Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes.

Mar 12:10 And have you not read this scripture, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner:

Luk 20:17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Act 4:10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole.
Act 4:11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Eph 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

1Pe 2:4 Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God:

1Pe 2:7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner:**

 

[Teneas]

Thank you. Yes God understands where we each are in our walks and what understanding we each have discerned to this point. Scripture is Scripture to me. NT included since I’ve had it since my infancy. Peace and God bless each of us on our journeys.

 

[tweetymom]

If the Bible was truly the final word for you, than you would adhere to The Chruch that Jesus left to guide us. The truth is the Bible as the final word is YOUR interpretion of Scripture not what Scripture really says.

Someone else asked you to explain the name change. You did not answer. That is part of the Bible. If you have been there done that, does that mean you studied the Bible with Catholics for eight years? I don’t think your pride would let you admit that you wasted your time on a false Bible study and that you are ignorant on what the Bible says.

I don’t agree with those who say you are not Catholic. You do not believe in Catholic thought but that does not mean your not Catholic.

Thank you for some of your kind words. I did explain the name change it was out of anger.

I studied and taught the Bible for 8 years in BSF. I have no pride when it comes to Jesus. My time studing Gods word was is not a waste of time. I have also studied in Catholic studies. Are you trying to insult me by saying I am ignorant on the Bible?

 

[adrift]

Thank you for some of your kind words. I did explain the name change it was out of anger.

I studied and taught the Bible for 8 years in BSF. I have no pride when it comes to Jesus. My time studing Gods word was is not a waste of time. I have also studied in Catholic studies. Are you trying to insult me by saying I am ignorant on the Bible?

No, I am trying to get you to understand that you have acccepted uncritically Protestant theology that is false.

Out of anger? That makes no sense and is an addition to what the Bible says. So Jesus changes Peter’s name to rock and says that on that rock He will build His Church because He is angry? Why was He angry?

I would point out to you that Jesus never said go write. He said I am building my Church. He speaks of listening to the Church. The Bible came from the Church. The Church existed before the New Testament. The New Testament was written by the first Christians who later became known as Catholics. Jesus gave the Keys to Peter. Jesus gave them the power of retaining and loosing. Scripture also states that not alll is written. No where in the Bible does it say that it is the sole rule of faith. It says the opposite.

 

[Teneas]

Thank you for some of your kind words. I did explain the name change it was out of anger.

I studied and taught the Bible for 8 years in BSF. I have no pride when it comes to Jesus. My time studing Gods word was is not a waste of time. I have also studied in Catholic studies. Are you trying to insult me by saying I am ignorant on the Bible?

I honestly don’t think anyone here is trying to insult you. It’s nice to have additional insight and thoughts about things. I think perhaps you are a bit defensive? Not saying I blame you of course, specially if you truly thought, or think that your beliefs are 100% Catholic. I would get offended if I thought that, and was told I didn’t by other Catholics. Think everyone is just saying that we think if you proclaim to be Catholic, and are here helping to teach what Catholics believe, that you should accurately teach what Catholics believe, or make it -very- clear that it is you talking, and not representing the Catholic Church.

I am not insulting, nor do I ever intend to insult

 

[tweetymom]

No, I am trying to get you to understand that you have acccepted uncritically Protestant theology that is false.

Out of anger? That makes no sense and is an addition to what the Bible says. So Jesus changes Peter’s name to rock and says that on that rock He will build His Church because He is angry? Why was He angry?

I would point out to you that Jesus never said go write. He said I am building my Church. He speaks of listening to the Church. The Bible came from the Church. The Church existed before the New Testament. The New Testament was written by the first Christians who later became known as Catholics. Jesus gave the Keys to Peter. Jesus gave them the power of retaining and loosing. Scripture also states that not alll is written. No where in the Bible does it say that it is the sole rule of faith. It says the opposite.

OOPs I thought you wer talking about my name. I have said at least a dozen times The rock was Peters faith in Jesus nothing more nothing less.

I hava accept the Bible and mu faith in Jesus. Sorry