Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Javl]

"A gift in secret blinds their eyes, they know not because they will not understand." Matt.Henry. 17th,Cent, Commentator!

I agree. Too many are blinded to the truth by their anti-Catholic bias. They look, but cannot see.

What was passed on by ,‘the laying on of hands,’ was membership of the College of Bishops. Which on the deaths of the apostles became the magisterium. By the way, Jesus is the Church, we are but members of Christ, or as it is usually put, Children of God.

I see. Then the laying on of hands was only for membership, not authority? Hmmmm.

**If they have been given, quite a few people have missed them, perhaps they have not been answered as clearly s we would have liked! Perhaps you would point out just where they are, or which numbers cover them?cf **

**My first response to the above is you are just about right in your time scale1500 yrs! But we are now in the second millenium! Some where or other you have missed out the first 500yrs, well you are correct in that because according to Orthodox and Anglican scholars, as well as some Roman ones,the Petrine Claims as articulated on this board were none starters. The Rock was said by the Holy Fathers, certainly of the first 300 yrs to be either Christ or Peter’s faith. It was Pope Leo, that falsifier of canons, and forger,who first made any claims at all for the papacy and he was some 350yrs, after the Rock event! **

Again your anti-Catholic bias is showing through. I guess that today’s Catholic and Protestant scholars and theologians who agree on the literal understanding and translation of Matthew are to be also considered false and forgers?

**You are letting your enthusiasm overtake your knowledge. The bulk of the fathers either as individual utterances or collectively in Ecumenical Councils knew nothing of the Claims. **

My enthusiasm has nothing to do with my knowledge. And I say this in all charity and with humility: By your posts and responses, I am beginning to be convinced that my knowledge is greater than yours.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Its not a mention to any person, its FAITH. How often did Jesus honor pure faith over other consideration in the gospels?

The Roman Officer asking mercy for his servant, the woman who touched His robe to be healed of a bleeding disease and we are told to have the faith of a child to enter heaven. This is just Jesus honoring Peter for his faith.

Faith is the Rock.

 

[tweetymom]

Its not a mention to any person, its FAITH. How often did Jesus honor pure faith over other consideration in the gospels?

The Roman Officer asking mercy for his servant, the woman who touched His robe to be healed of a bleeding disease and we are told to have the faith of a child to enter heaven. This is just Jesus honoring Peter for his faith.

Faith is the Rock.

Faith is my rock too.

 

[Callin]

Faith is my rock too.

You have stated this many times. But why do you think the rock being “faith” is the best interpretation?

 

[tweetymom]

You have stated this many times. But why do you think the rock being “faith” is the best interpretation?

Because my faith in Jesus is the rock upon whom my salvation is built on , not Peter a man.

 

[Carlan]

Faith is my rock too.

You must put it all together, you take much out of context. If you are Catholic and not understanding it. Go to the teaching authority of the Church. The Magisterium. We don’t lean completely on our own understanding. The false spirit can sneak in and does to lead us astray. We humble ourselves and turn to God for understanding of the Truth.Carlan

 

[tweetymom]

You must put it all together, you take much out of context. If you are Catholic and not understanding it. Go to the teaching authority of the Church. The Magisterium. We don’t lean completely on our own understanding. The false spirit can sneak in and does to lead us astray. We humble ourselves and turn to God for understanding of the Truth.Carlan

Thank you it is all together for me. I do not have a false spirit maam. I have the Spirit of Jesus, and I do have the truth.

 

[Callin]

Because my faith in Jesus is the rock upon whom my salvation is built on , not Peter a man.

But Jesus says the church is being built on the Rock in Matthew 16:18, not your salvation.

 

[tweetymom]

Jesus says the church is being built on the Rock in Matthew 16:18, not your salvation.

Sorry but my faith in Jesus is my salvation. And my rock

 

[Carlan]

Thank you it is all together for me. I do not have a false spirit maam. I have the Spirit of Jesus, and I do have the truth.

Tweety, I did not say you had a false spirit. The false spirit is at work and we must acknowledge that. He and his helpers are after Christians all the time. We turn to God to test the Spirits, presumption is very dangerous, can’t you agree with that? Carlan

 

[tweetymom]

Tweety, I did not say you had a false spirit. The false spirit is at work and we must acknowledge that. He and his helpers are after Christians all the time. We turn to God to test the Spirits, presumption is very dangerous, can’t you agree with that? Carlan

I do test the spirits and presumption is a very dangerous thing. Some have presumed that I am wrong because I do not agree with all the CC says. That is a presumption. Thanks

 

[Callin]

Sorry but my faith in Jesus is my salvation. And my rock

You ignored my post.

Jesus says nothing about salvation in Matthew 16:18.

He says that he is building a church on the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Why, then, are you saying your salvation is built on the rock in Matthew 16:18?

 

[tweetymom]

You ignored my post.

Jesus says nothing about salvation in Matthew 16:18.

He says that he is building a church on the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Why, then, are you saying your salvation is built on the rock in Matthew 16:18?

Peters statment was his faith and that is what a Chuch is built on. Not on Peter personally. We are all Chjrist’s church, our faith in Him. If you don’t get it sorry. Cannot explain it any clearer. I am not hear to argue just stating what holds true.

 

[HisWill777]

But Jesus says the church is being built on the Rock in Matthew 16:18, not your salvation.

Yes, I believe it is built on the Rock (Peter). However it says nothing about “if you don’t follow this Church (no matter what it claims because it’s leader is infallible) you will not be in Heaven. Even though in the pages and pages of Scripture I teach the Good News and that I came to save your souls, the whole Truth won’t be written in these Holy Spirit inspired documents, I only told Church leaders the true path to salvation. Don’t worry, they’ll pass this on to you, but men will argue about this for 2000+ years.”

 

[Libertarian_FL]

You have stated this many times. But why do you think the rock being “faith” is the best interpretation?

Because it was revealed to me that all four gospels were not accurate that the apostles that had the accounts set down added in sayings and events that never happened, not that they were unholy but were tempted by Satan to gain power. To do this they undermined the simple message of Jesus which is in there in spots for one that would allow them to declare a central faith authority. Rome was no threat to the faith yet that was what led the faith into the temptaion of the Enemy, and from that the history of the faith is steeped in evil not great good. The Apostled failed to trust God and that was their great weakness.

Look at the life of Jesus and how He lived, have the faith of a child live as He did.

And making Peter the Rock was added in Jesus never said that. The exact words were “and on this rock I will build up My people (plural) and the Gates of Hell will not destroy them.” The wording was changed and altered so subtly as to corrupt the meaning but close enough to hide this.

 

[Callin]

Yes, I believe it is built on the Rock (Peter). **However it says nothing about “if you don’t follow this Church (no matter what it claims because it’s leader is infallible) you will not be in Heaven. ** Even though in the pages and pages of Scripture I teach the Good News and that I came to save your souls, the whole Truth won’t be written in these Holy Spirit inspired documents, I only told Church leaders the true path to salvation. Don’t worry, they’ll pass this on to you, but men will argue about this for 2000+ years.”

uh…I wasn’t the one who said this verse had anything to do with salvation. I agree that salvation is not mentioned in it.

 

[Carlan]

Peters statment was his faith and that is what a Chuch is built on. Not on Peter personally. We are all Chjrist’s church, our faith in Him. If you don’t get it sorry. Cannot explain it any clearer. I am not hear to argue just stating what holds true.

What is your understanding of the words of Jesus in Mt16:17-19???, Jesus replied,“Blessed are you , Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven, (18) I (Jesus) for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock( Peter his first Vicar,or Pope on earth) I (Jesus) will build my Church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What ever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven”Carlan

 

[luckyfredsdad]

You have stated this many times. But why do you think the rock being “faith” is the best interpretation?

**Because the interpretation that it is Peter’s Faith was the interpretation of most of the Christian Fathers of the Early Church! Read the previous mails.
Your own teachings,[Trent 1564] turns you to the fathers to interpret these words.
Maximos iv ,a Byzantine catholic tells us as late as 1984,“It is not proper to speak of the Pope as head of the Church,going on to say,the Church consists not only of Peter, but of the other apostles as well.” Fr, Victor Herbert, a Byzantine catholic Commentator of some note in the 1980s said,“It is not proper to speak of the Roman Pontiff as the head of the Church…the doctrine of primacy is true and not doubted” …but papal primacy flourished only after the lance of schism pierced the side of Christ’s 1054] Church…as a result many rights of the bishops have been taken by the Holy See".
Byzantine Catholic World, 1982!}
Are the Byzantine catholics protestant in any way?

The two people I have referred to are not Early Fathers, in fact they are quite modern ones, but it does show that the Roman Church is not as monolithic as some feel it should be. Is the front cracking do you think?**

 

[st_someone]

This debate has always been one of a bit of a comedy…for me.

We are really showing our lack of faith to say anyone other than Christ runs the show…but that He did in fact declare that a human being was to be the pedastal for the dynamic…point being- it’s always a RELATIONSHIP. Do not even Prostestant Churches have someone who ‘runs the show’ to some extent? Of course they do.
Where would Lutherans be without “pope” Luther?
No matter what…who do we all think REALLY runs the church?

Pope is a vicar. A representative…for whom???

Christ runs the show no matter what we think or say or argue.

We can say we believe Christ is the head, as Protestants do or we can say we believe the Pope, as mouthpiece of Christ, runs the church, as Catholics do but we’re really saying the same thing.
The only difference is in our ego investments of “My faith is bigger than yours”.
If i thought, and no real catholic does, that the pope makes it up as he goes along without the Spirit of God, then i’d be looooooooooooooooooooong gone.

 

[Janet1983]

Before I continue on to answer your post I would like to ask you to forgive me brother for taking so long. I shouldn’t have, but I was pushing it around… I will now look at what you wrote and answer to the best of my knowledge.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

I understand that some Protestant scholars are in agreement with you and their argument might be good and viable, but I take the liberty to humbly disagree.
Looking at the text I am still convinced that Jesus Christ Himself is the one Rock upon which the Christian Church is founded and because of this I believe myself to be a member of said Church.

The meat of this was written by an anti-Catholic Protestant…that should make the argument even more compelling.

I do not believe myself to be anti-Catholic. For this reason I cannot understand how this should in any form or fashion enhance the argument presented to me. I will however look into it and be reasonable concerning reproach and correction.
My disagreement with one or the other doctrine should not indicate that I am anti-Catholic. I simply disagree on some issues which we might not be able to resolve. We may however leave the battlefield in the knowledge that nothing is lost and everything is gained in Jesus Christ as the firm foundation of our faith.

“You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.”

I read the text and I still disagree. There might be different ways to look at Scripture and I am not at all scared to look at the possibility of Peter actually being the Rock, but I do not believe that he is. Even after all the arguments by one or the other scholar I am more likely to agree with the notion that Jesus Christ is the Rock and sole foundation of my faith. He is my Master, my Saviour, my King, my Shepherd, my Lord. To Him alone do I bow and He is the recipient of all my adoration, my worship, my prayer and my love.
He is giving me that which I do not deserve instead of that which I do deserve through His great Mercy and Grace. That is why I serve no other, follow no other and love no other. He bought me with a price. I am His slave.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

In Him,
Janet