Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Lib_Christian]

You claim to be “catholic” but you write things that show me you haven’t been to a Catholic Mass in 40 years; Latin mass and no women talking or participating in the liturgy. If you believe these to be true you have not been to mass since Vatican II. You have heard of that, right?

You seem a little angry at the Church, I am curious as to your reason for anger?
QUOTE]

I have some other things to do today so am not going to respond to everything directed at me since I was last here. Because it just goes in circles. But I had to this one.

You would be wrong about my Mass attendance but that’s ok.

My words about Latin were related to the church possibly reverting more and more back to it.

My words about women not speaking were to show how the Church thankfully no longer follows those customs.

Anger is a bit harsh. I am disappointed and try to know the false teachers by their fruits.

And as for my brother Javi, yes I can call myself a Catholic if I want because the Church does. I thought you were no longer going to argue? Peace to all.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet, there is nothing to respond to.
Forum rules state that when you cut and paste, you need to cite your sources.

Cut/Paste and run are the markings of a troll.

I quoted the Bible. It is obvious that I did have to cut and paste… other than that I spend quite some time investigating into the subject.
The only cutting and pasting I did was Greek words and Scripture. Who does not cut and paste Bible verses?
I did not use anybody else’s project for this and all I quoted was God’s work.
While you continue to seem to be trying to harass me with these strange accusations I will try and continue making sense out of the responses I got that are worth looking into in a more detailed fashion.
Please do not get hung up on formalities (and call me a troll). I did quote my source (the Bible) and I even quoted the chapter and verse.

In Him,
Janet

 

[Janet1983]

Well, you said your post #280 was being ignored, so I’ll answer it twice.

Please bear with me. I will answer as soon as possible.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I’m not Jesus. None of us were there. John the Baptist wasn’t an Apostle. Perhaps because Jesus was building His Church at the time Simon said what he said. Why would Jesus build his church on what the devil in hell said?

First of all you should study other faiths to see their explanations about their beliefs on homsexuality. But you don’t honestly want to go there about people teaching against homosexuality and then practicing it, do you? You are a Catholic, right? You don’t think there are any practicing homosexuals teaching in the Catholic Church? What about teaching that child molestation is wrong but then practicing it and covering it up?

I’m sorry Lib Christian, I think I failed to make my point in a clear and easy to follow manner.

What I was trying to illustrate is that an assumption that all people (and even demons) who confess that Jesus is the Messiah, will automatically become the Rock on whom Christ builds his un-defeatable Church, leads to a logical contradiction. You will end up with one person claiming that abortion is a mortal sin, and another one claiming that it is not a sin, while both people confess that Jesus is the Messiah. And people who confess Christ, will similarly disagree on whether the practice of homosexuality, or artificial birth control, or any other controversial issues, are sinful or not. It is possible to confess and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and still be in a grave moral error (such as the Christians who believe that the practice of homosexuality is not sinful), or even to outright reject to obey God and his commandments (not only demons do this, but also some people).

Now regarding the question of some Bishops and Priests, or even the Pope teaching correctly, while committing the most abominable sins in secret, I am having some problems of my own with understanding this part. Let’s suppose a hypothetical Pope who teaches correctly that homosexual practice is sinful, while having gay lovers and even raping little boys in secret. My understanding is that this Pope will still serve as the Rock of the Church, and the Church will still be error-free in her teachings. However, this Pope will surely go to hell, unless he repents of his sins. Moreover, he is actually causing grave scandal to those few (his victims, for example) who know of his secret sins. However, I wouldn’t mind (I would really appreciate!) other people correcting me on this part, if I’m wrong.

 

[Javl]

Quoted by luckyfredsdad:

**As to whether the Padrej is correct or not, even just how much of a bishop he is a matter for question? I have asked, but have not received a satisfactory answer. If either you, or anyone else think I misquote the facts history on this thread, they should dispute them. Tell my how and where I am wrong! You haven’t even tried. Many have tried, but have not convinced me otherwise. Until they do, or expel me from the site, I shall continue to defend my Church and faith!

Many thanks for your interest!
**

My friend, I have been in deep discussion with padrej. He has proven to me without a doubt that he IS a Bishop of the First Class. He is a theologian and is a teacher of theology in a seminary. Although he is not of my faith, I admire him and deeply respect him for not only his position as a Bishop, but also as a Man of God. So it is best, that when he says or tells you something, to heed his warning and advice. If you wish to make a fool of yourself, then please continue to do so.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I never use Wiki for religious education or enlighteenment, at least if I have a choice. It seem like a House magazine for the Vatican?

**I was taught at school that classicly protestant was a follower of Luther! A Calvanist was a Reformer and an Anglican was a traditional Catholic. At great trouble , I have just checked again and my Funk and Wagner, tells me that Prot=Luther. Neither my Church nor myself have ever protested against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Medieval accretions, such as Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility and their consequent deviations or additions yes, also as Wakeham, I think said, protestant subtractions, yes I plead guilty!
In England, 1571 , when the papacy chose to withdraw its supporters from communion with the Church in England, there was some discussion as to what their name should be. The very obvious one was Papist,but this would support the bigots in the idea that Rome was no longer Catholic, but simply sect. It was then they hit on the term Roman
to describe the English followers of Trent. After all, they were followers of the Bishop Of Rome, they had accepted the coup and it would differentiate them from the Traditionalists who were after all
Anglican by birth as it were and English Catholics.
**

Again you anti-Catholic bias shows through. Wikipedia has more, complete, and better organized information that F&W. F&W is secular and whether you know it or not it is biased.

Again, Luther was a Protestant, and ALSO a reformer. Don’t you bother to read up on your Church history, or do you rely strictly on F&W for your information? If Luther would have stayed within the Church and fought for reform, we would not have the splinter of all the churches that we have today. His ideas were good, but he left the church before he bothered to implement any of his ideas of reform.

And if you or your church did/do not accept papal primacy, jurisdiction, or infallibility, then you are Protestant. Please read the definition of a Catholic in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Lapey]

Lapey;6128941:

You claim to be “catholic” but you write things that show me you haven’t been to a Catholic Mass in 40 years; Latin mass and no women talking or participating in the liturgy. If you believe these to be true you have not been to mass since Vatican II. You have heard of that, right?

You seem a little angry at the Church, I am curious as to your reason for anger?
QUOTE]

I have some other things to do today so am not going to respond to everything directed at me since I was last here. Because it just goes in circles. But I had to this one.

You would be wrong about my Mass attendance but that’s ok.

My words about Latin were related to the church possibly reverting more and more back to it.

My words about women not speaking were to show how the Church thankfully no longer follows those customs.

Anger is a bit harsh. I am disappointed and try to know the false teachers by their fruits.

And as for my brother Javi, yes I can call myself a Catholic if I want because the Church does. I thought you were no longer going to argue? Peace to all.

Oh is that it, you are correct then. I am sorry i missed the false teachers thing before, thanks for pointing that ouit for me. Now I know that history and my Church is wrong!

Wow, that was close.

Did you even look at the entire post? Answer the question, did Jesus come to change the world or did He come to be changed by the world? Simple, just choose an answer.

 

[TEPO]

Anger is a bit harsh. I am disappointed and try to know the false teachers by their fruits.

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ERRONEOUS SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION

How arrogant. You must be without sin yourself to be judge of ones “fruits”. This is what you have claimed is’nt it?

Tell me this, has God given you the authority to judge ones worth through their sins --and were you there to witness the sins of the so called “false teachers”? No, of course not! But to go even further and accuse an entire Church as “false”, because of the lustful sins of some men, you have really shown the reality of extreme dissent from truth.

Obviously no man is without sin, so every denomination of Christianity contains sinners. Or perhaps you think that Jesus is the “false” teacher since His followers fall into sin ?

After all, nobody here has said that Protestantism is false because of its fruit… We simply question how many truths can there be??? Really, how many versions of the truth are there?

 

[TEPO]

could it be that there is NO truth ?

Then it wouldnt matter who or what the rock was… Do Protestants think there is just no *real *truth?

In this case, we could either view God as real, or simply the universe as a whole… All religeons could then be one in the same. God or “the Gods” would all be the same.

 

[schaick]

I find this perplexing. Viewed from a Catholic perspective the bible cleary provides evidence that Peter was the Rock and first pope. On the other hand protestants say this is not the case and decide to interpret scripture differently. Rather than leave it at that and have endless disagreements the sensible thing to do is to review other supporting historical evidence. When this is done it is absolutley clear that Peter was seen as the first Pope and that by the time the last book of the NT was written there had been 5 successors. What more is there to discuss?

Here are some points to consider:

1. There are many arguements on both sides as to which rock Jesus meant, Petros, Petra, Cephas, [lithos=rock in greek so why use the term petros and petra?], etc. Peter or the faith that Peter held. Was it intended to be read in Aramaic, Greek? Jury is still out on all this.
2. After Jesus says HE is giving the Keys of Heaven to Peter in Matthew 18 see what Jesus says and does, Keys are given to all the Apostles:

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

1. When a decision was needed in Acts 15 you see it was done by committee.
2. Peter was the Apostle to the circumsize Jews. Paul to the Gentiles.
3. Peter describes himself:
   1 Peter 5
   1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock…
4. The duty of the Apostles was to keep the church true to the teachings of Jesus-adding nothing to what we have in the 4 original Gospels, Matthw, Mark, Luke and John.
5. There were 5 bishops in the first years of the early church- the term Pope was not used until later.

 

[mark_a]

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.

Can you give us the first century AOG interpretation? A source would be appreciated.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here are some points to consider:

1. There are many arguements on both sides as to which rock Jesus meant, Petros, Petra, Cephas, [lithos=rock in greek so why use the term petros and petra?], etc. Peter or the faith that Peter held. Was it intended to be read in Aramaic, Greek? Jury is still out on all this.
2. After Jesus says HE is giving the Keys of Heaven to Peter in Matthew 18 see what Jesus says and does, Keys are given to all the Apostles:

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

1. When a decision was needed in Acts 15 you see it was done by committee.
2. Peter was the Apostle to the circumsize Jews. Paul to the Gentiles.
3. Peter describes himself:
   1 Peter 5
   1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock…
4. The duty of the Apostles was to keep the church true to the teachings of Jesus-adding nothing to what we have in the 4 original Gospels, Matthw, Mark, Luke and John.
5. There were 5 bishops in the first years of the early church- the term Pope was not used until later.

Please read back through the whole thread so we don’t have to repeat posts…

 

[Javl]

Here are some points to consider:

1. There are many arguements on both sides as to which rock Jesus meant, Petros, Petra, Cephas, [lithos=rock in greek so why use the term petros and petra?], etc. Peter or the faith that Peter held. Was it intended to be read in Aramaic, Greek? Jury is still out on all this.

Sorry, but lithos does not mean rock. It is the Greek word for stone. Petra in Greek means rock. And, the jury has settled the question

1. After Jesus says HE is giving the Keys of Heaven to Peter in Matthew 18 see what Jesus says and does, Keys are given to all the Apostles:

Please read Matthew 16:19 again. Jesus was talking only to Peter. The Keys to the Kingdom were given only to Peter and not to all the Apostles.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

And it will be ratified by Jesus.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

1. When a decision was needed in Acts 15 you see it was done by committee.

1. Peter was the Apostle to the circumsized Jews. Paul to the Gentiles.

1. Peter describes himself:
   1 Peter 5
   1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock…

1. The duty of the Apostles was to keep the church true to the teachings of Jesus-adding nothing to what we have in the 4 original Gospels, Matthw, Mark, Luke and John.

1. There were 5 bishops in the first years of the early church- the term Pope was not used until later.

Every Church ( or congregation ) had a Bishop in charge. There were more than five Churches, therefore there were more than five Bishops. As for the Pope ( Papa, or father in Italian ), you are correct. The title was not used in the early Church, but the office of “chief”, or “head” Bishop did. Although Peter did not claim the title Bishop of the Church in Rome, he was considered as such as the senior, or “chief” Apostle since he lead the congregation there and was martyred there.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[josie_L]

Again you anti-Catholic bias shows through. Wikipedia has more, complete, and better organized information that F&W. F&W is secular and whether you know it or not it is biased.

Again, Luther was a Protestant, and ALSO a reformer. Don’t you bother to read up on your Church history, or do you rely strictly on F&W for your information? If Luther would have stayed within the Church and fought for reform, we would not have the splinter of all the churches that we have today. His ideas were good, but he left the church before he bothered to implement any of his ideas of reform.

And if you or your church did/do not accept papal primacy, jurisdiction, or infallibility, then you are Protestant. Please read the definition of a Catholic in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Just remind him of the fact that he accepts with authority a Protestant bible!!

 

[Lib_Christian]

I’m sorry Lib Christian, I think I failed to make my point in a clear and easy to follow manner.

You will end up with one person claiming that abortion is a mortal sin, and another one claiming that it is not a sin, while both people confess that Jesus is the Messiah. And people who confess Christ, will similarly disagree on whether the practice of homosexuality, or artificial birth control, or any other controversial issues, are sinful or not. It is possible to confess and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and still be in a grave moral error (such as the Christians who believe that the practice of homosexuality is not sinful)

Now regarding the question of some Bishops and Priests, or even the Pope teaching correctly, while committing the most abominable sins in secret, I am having some problems of my own with understanding this part. Let’s suppose a hypothetical Pope who teaches correctly that homosexual practice is sinful, while having gay lovers and even raping little boys in secret. My understanding is that this Pope will still serve as the Rock of the Church, and the Church will still be error-free in her teachings. However, this Pope will surely go to hell, unless he repents of his sins. Moreover, he is actually causing grave scandal to those few (his victims, for example) who know of his secret sins. However, I wouldn’t mind (I would really appreciate!) other people correcting me on this part, if I’m wrong.

Hi Joseph, no problem. I’m not going to get into a discussion now about what other Christians believe in regard to controversial issues like homosexuality for example. You will have to study their beliefs and how they interpret Scripture. I have.

Thanks for sharing you are having a problem with things too. Peace.
.

 

[Lib_Christian]

Lib Christian;6129986:

Oh is that it, you are correct then. I am sorry i missed the false teachers thing before, thanks for pointing that ouit for me. Now I know that history and my Church is wrong!

Wow, that was close.

Did you even look at the entire post? Answer the question, did Jesus come to change the world or did He come to be changed by the world? Simple, just choose an answer.

Yes I did and and my final answer whether you share the belief or not. Christ came to change the world. And He is more than capable of correcting, reforming along the way. Peace.

 

[Lib_Christian]

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ERRONEOUS SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION

How arrogant. You must be without sin yourself to be judge of ones “fruits”. This is what you have claimed is’nt it?

Tell me this, has God given you the authority to judge ones worth through their sins --and were you there to witness the sins of the so called “false teachers”? No, of course not! But to go even further and accuse an entire Church as “false”, because of the lustful sins of some men, you have really shown the reality of extreme dissent from truth.

Obviously no man is without sin, so every denomination of Christianity contains sinners. Or perhaps you think that Jesus is the “false” teacher since His followers fall into sin ?

After all, nobody here has said that Protestantism is false because of its fruit… We simply question how many truths can there be??? Really, how many versions of the truth are there?

Nope. But if you are going to judge some sins mortal and others venial, I will question whether my missing Mass last Friday was as bad as someone supposedly in a leadership position molesting a child which I have never done. No, God has not given just to me but to all sheep the authority to judge false teachers by their fruits. He SAID you will know them by their fruits. Pretty simple stuff. But I understand how the thought of false teachers in the Roman church can be a hard thing for some to accept. I would say 1truth which we are all searching for I trust on our lifelong journeys with Christ. I’m not sure any of us can grasp God’s Truth in its entirety. We are mere humans. And I am not so arrogant to presume I absolutely, positively KNOW it all. I have repeated how many times, but once again… It is called FAITH. May God bless you on your faith walk with Him. Peace.

 

[Lib_Christian]

Here are some points to consider:

1. There are many arguements on both sides as to which rock Jesus meant, Petros, Petra, Cephas, [lithos=rock in greek so why use the term petros and petra?], etc. Peter or the faith that Peter held. Was it intended to be read in Aramaic, Greek? Jury is still out on all this.
2. After Jesus says HE is giving the Keys of Heaven to Peter in Matthew 18 see what Jesus says and does, Keys are given to all the Apostles:

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

1. When a decision was needed in Acts 15 you see it was done by committee.
2. Peter was the Apostle to the circumsize Jews. Paul to the Gentiles.
3. Peter describes himself:
   1 Peter 5
   1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock…
4. The duty of the Apostles was to keep the church true to the teachings of Jesus-adding nothing to what we have in the 4 original Gospels, Matthw, Mark, Luke and John.
5. There were 5 bishops in the first years of the early church- the term Pope was not used until later.

Schaick, thanks for that . Good points for me to consider.

 

[Lib_Christian]

I’ll no longer discuss/argue the point.

I see that lasted about 15 hrs.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

thank you never said it did. I believe jesus is the rock and Peters faith is the rock not Peter.

You’re certainly entitled to your personal opinion, but I dont believe your interpretation is a fair reading of the text. If so, why did Jesus name Simon “Rock” (Cephas) and not something like “Faith” or “Believe.”

Peace,
Robert