Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[TEPO]

Why is it so difficult for all the non-Catholics on this thread to understand and accept that Peter is the rock on which Jesus, as the cornerstone, built His Church?

Why can’t you understand that He was not speaking in parables, allegorically, or symbolically?

Why do you all insist on distorting and skewing His words with what you think He said and meant?

Why are you telling Jesus that He did not mean to say what He did say and that He should say what you want Him to say? Stop putting the wrong spin on His words. Clear your minds and reject you preconceived thoughts and prejudices. Pray to the Holy Spirit for a clear understanding and open your mind to Him. He will tell you and explain exactly what Jesus said and meant. If you do, then all will be very clear and you will all know the truth.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

… Exactly.

 

[Worthy5]

I do not think an Aramaic NT manuscript exists; it was given in Greek by God the Holy Spirit. This is the point, if you are going to translate part of the Bible using Aramaic, then what would happen to the rest of the NT; it would be quite the translation and interpretation challenge mess.

i think you missed the point of the previous post because your question is not w/in the context of my point.

No, no point was missed, the point is that all language is subject to multiple interpretations and contexts and translation issues------nothing definite can come out of that–but when you have the Greek and Aramaic ready we can take a shot at it. Thanks

 

[Worthy5]

What do you want explained?

Tweetymom

Aramaic and Greek? Just checking. Thanks

 

[rovimax]

In John 2 Mary tells us to do whatever Jesus tells us to do. So as Catholics we listen to the words of Mary as written by John. In John 6, Peter said to Jesus…’’ to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. That’s why for Catholics we listened to the words of Peter as written by John. As Catholics we follow Jesus the way he wanted as to act. Listening to His witnesses is same as listening to Him. Luke 10:16.

It is in fallen human nature that nobody wanted to be told of his faults or how the way to live his life. That’s why many rejected the Papacy because they don’t want to be told of their mistakes. So they must reject the establishment of the Church thru Peter. They rather circuminvent private interpretations to get away. It is already clear in the Bible written in each nations language and still make private interpretations. Almost all Bibles consistently translated the same meaning and still different interpretations were made and then claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit so there should be only one thruth. How sad it is as the Holy spirit having been insulted by many everytime a Person claims he was guided by the Holy Spirit and yet misrepresents other’s beliefs.

LORD grant us PEACE.

 

[Reuben_J]

WOW… I seriously got the chills after reading this post !

I believe now more than ever that Peter is the Rock.

If Jesus reckognized that God was giving Peter infallible knowledge, even though Peter made mistakes, then this proves that the Church today is capable of infallible knowledge, even though it makes mistakes.

God is good ! :bowdown:

Jesus had no doubt pronounced that Peter was the rock in Mt 16:18. I am just trying to figure it out how verse 18 could mean Peter’s faith or Jesus himself. The language is simple and the sentence straight forward. I am cracking my head as to how anyone could make a spin of thing so obvious. I am just glad that I am a Catholic where things are so simple, where a rock is known as a rock and not something else that it is not.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

In John 2 Mary tells us to do whatever Jesus tells us to do. So as Catholics we listen to the words of Mary as written by John. In John 6, Peter said to Jesus…’’ to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

**Nicely put! I’m sure all agree! Just where does all this get us in regard to the papacy? ** Where in scripture does it tell us, or in the Councils, or from the Individual fathers, that the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s primacy?

---

This has ben asked many times and as yet there hasn’t been an satisfactory answer! The Holy Fathers believed in the Collective magisterium of the Bishops through the Councils, That is the Catholic Faith!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Jesus had no doubt pronounced that Peter was the rock in Mt 16:18. I am just trying to figure it out how verse 18 could mean Peter’s faith or Jesus himself. The language is simple and the sentence straight forward,

**Your own Church tells you that the Scripture, for Romans, must be interpreted by and understood through,the teachings of the Holy Fathers.
**

 

[Worthy5]

QUOTE=luckyfredsdad;6144646]**Nicely put! I’m sure all agree! Just where does all this get us in regard to the papacy? ** Where in scripture does it tell us, or in the Councils, or from the Individual fathers, that the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s primacy?

Why do you think that the above is the criteria to be used to evaluate the Papacy? Justify your criterion.

 

[Javl]

**Nicely put! I’m sure all agree! Just where does all this get us in regard to the papacy? ** Where in scripture does it tell us, or in the Councils, or from the Individual fathers, that the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s primacy?

---

This has ben asked many times and as yet there hasn’t been an satisfactory answer! The Holy Fathers believed in the Collective magisterium of the Bishops through the Councils, That is the Catholic Faith!

Again! You know exactly nothing of the Catholic Church and its history. Before you start making such ridiculous statements, get yourself some books about the Church and learn first and then ask for an explanation or clarification. You may increase your knowledge overall.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Why do you think that the above is the criteria to be used to evaluate the Papacy? Justify your criterion.

Seeing your side are making the claims, it is for you and or your friends to substantiate the claims of the Roman Church!

I will do however, though the responsibility is yours!

The Authority of the Church is based on Councils, local councils and Ecumenical Councils. These are vehicles for the College of Bishops to tackle the problems of the Church at any givern time. Under the guidance and tuitilige of the Holy Ghost! Councils have their provenance in Scripture, chiefly Acts 15. N.B. This is more than the Bishop of Rome does! According to Orthodox sources there are about seven,* mentioned in Acts. The disciples were there and S.James, the Bishop of Jerusalem was in the Chair at the main one.He closed the meetings with a statement that is echoed today,‘It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us!’
Councils became the chosen way for the young Church to regulate its problems. The Church in Africa, the Church of S.Cyprian, met at regular intervals S.Augustine and S,Firmilian were all attendees.They met at regular intervals, up to the disappearance of the Church in Africa about the fifth century. In their long life the Council of Carthage twice repremanded the Pope for interfering in their business and once for tendering forged canons purporting to come from Nice,when it was obvious they were forgeries. There were regular councils at the Lateran over a number of years to settle their disputes. Even the Church in Britain held them, memorably over the isolation from the Continentals which caused extreme dissension in our Church! All the major problems of the early Church were settled by this means. Nice
was the greatest eevent in the early church and even today, its canons are held by all major mainline church’s as well as the other three main Councils. These were on Christological matters, whil’st four and five were explanatory and the seventh was on a matter of manners, as Archbishop Laud remarked. It laid down for catholics the place of the Lady Mary and the Holy people of God, in the frame work of the Catholic Church.
Seven Councils, the base and pillars of the Christian Church! The pope didn’t attend any, they were called by the emperors, usually as a matter of state policy. They were run by the Commissioners of the Roman Emperor and they stablised the catholic faith at a time of great disorder within the Church. Pope Leo made a contribution to one of the Councils, Chalcedon, then tried to ignore the findings, because they limited his perogatives. They are accepted as Ecumenical and Infallible after the fact of their acceptance by the Church throughout the world. Incidentally Bishops of the Church in Britain attended maany of the larger Councils, Fr, Estells, {Cat. Mess.2007} insists that Celtic Bishops attended Nice.Or one did.
When all these Bishops, 318 ?] at Nice met, what did they base their discussions on? It could only have been scripture and Tradition! In other words what was being said at the major sees, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem,Rome and Ephesus . Then, presumably they discussed what the smaller sees were saying and when they had done so and mulled the problems over, finally breaking in to committees, to distil the teachings of the early Church. The pope was rarely mentioned except as the recipient of some new honour because of the importence of his See.
Part One.*

 

[Worthy5]

Seeing your side are making the claims, it is for you and or your friends to substantiate the claims of the Roman Church!

I will do however, though the responsibility is yours!

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Nicely put! I’m sure all agree! Just where does all this get us in regard to the papacy? **Where in scripture does it tell us, or in the Councils, or from the Individual fathers, that the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s primacy?

This has ben asked many times and as yet there hasn’t been an satisfactory answer! The Holy Fathers believed in the Collective magisterium of the Bishops through the Councils, That is the Catholic Faith!

I feel certain that I have addressed your questions previously, but I am happy to do so again. And since you deserve a GOOD answer, bear with the length of this explanation…you asked for it!

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The writings of other members of the early Church supports the idea of continuing Apostolic Succession. For example, the Apostle John discipled a man known today as Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, discipled a man known as Irenaeus of Lyons. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus recorded the names of the leaders of the early church beginning with Peter down to his own day; thus, we have the following from a second-century (pre-Constantinian) Christian with impeccable credentials:

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

In this passage, Irenaeus traces the succession of the early Christian Church leaders from Peter down to Eleutherus in his own day—a span of approximately 120 years. Using other historical records, we can continue to trace the leadership of that same Church from Eleutherus all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

The existence and leadership of this Church is well-documented and unassailable historical fact. The connection between the modern Catholic Church and the pre-Constantinian Church of Peter, James and John is undeniable.

These early eyewitness accounts together with the testimony of Sacred Scripture prove the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine, and they drive a stake through the heart of any argument that the New Testament churches were independent of one another and not actually local congregations of the One Church led by the local Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Jesus had no doubt pronounced that Peter was the rock in Mt 16:18. I am just trying to figure it out how verse 18 could mean Peter’s faith or Jesus himself. The language is simple and the sentence straight forward. I am cracking my head as to how anyone could make a spin of thing so obvious. I am just glad that I am a Catholic where things are so simple, where a rock is known as a rock and not something else that it is not.

Very simple, the confession is the affirmation of the “Good News”, which is the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, long awaited mystery revealed. Try not to crack your head it won’t help, only hurt. If you believe that Peter is the rock which your church is founded, then why crack your head because it is already settled in your head.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Very simple, the confession is the affirmation of the “Good News”, which is the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, long awaited mystery revealed. Try not to crack your head it won’t help, only hurt. If you believe that Peter is the rock which your church is founded, then why crack your head because it is already settled in your head.

Heh…we’re not alone.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…**one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. **“To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

I have quotes like these from 15 more Protestant scholars if you need them.

 

[rovimax]

**Nicely put! I’m sure all agree! Just where does all this get us in regard to the papacy? ** Where in scripture does it tell us, or in the Councils, or from the Individual fathers, that the Bishop of Rome inherits Peter’s primacy?

---

This has ben asked many times and as yet there hasn’t been an satisfactory answer! The Holy Fathers believed in the Collective magisterium of the Bishops through the Councils, That is the Catholic Faith!

If you want to be convinced of others beliefs it is very easy to say where is that in scripture? But your very own belief of everything must be in the Bible is nowhere found in the Bible. Meaning again one will say I have the HS guiding me.

The Papacy is the one that keeps the Catholic Church unity. The Pope do not invent doctrines as others assume. If one misrepresent the teaching of the CC. would it be fair for those persons to admit that they are liars. If you misrepresent another one’s belief what will you call yourself? This goes for all even for me. If I say a Baptist do not teach Baptism, I deserved to be called a liar.

If Judas, a traitor needed a replacement Acts 1:15…ff. , how much more a leader for the worldwide Universal Church. Can you imagine the United States of America with out a replacement for the presidency.

Only Peter was given the Keys, Peter was tasked to feed the sheeps, Peter was always the first in the list of the Apostles, Peter received a special praye Jesus all forknew Peter’s failure but He chosed Peter to strengthen his brothers. how can an institution exist if there is no succession on its leaders? Even Coca Cola had its succession of leaders…

 

[Masters_Servant]

I suggest you read back through this thread. None of the verses you provide are supporting private interpretation of scriptures. Not everytime the Bible mentions God’s word/truth is it speaking of scriptures, it speaks of the spoken word and then there are times it qualifies that with the word being spoken through the authority/men of the Church/Temple. I myself have posted scriptural arguments showing, even in Old Testament times, the people were instructed on scriptures and had to have them explained to them. Nehemiah 8

You attempt to make an argument that many are not saved and the Holy Spirit will guide those in their interpretation. There are thousands of denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines/teachings, all based on someone’s private interpretation and ALL claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit. Did God leave everyone to discern which one is telling His truth? Or, does the Holy Spirit give different truths? Are you insinuating the people of the Catholic Church are not saved and are receiving an incorrect interpretation?

I say the answer is no to all three. He gave us a pillar and ground of truth, that even the manifold wisdom of God could be made known through and that’s the Church.

I’m not sure if you actually read my previous post because your answer does not reflect it. There exists no verse for private interpretation, that is error on the part of false teachers. I said that God the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Scripture. I pointed the definitive verse that no man can interpret Scripture, but the Holy Spirit of Truth reveals the correct interpretation to a real Christian and does not to the professing or in name only Christian, which is not really a Christian at all.

This is why, you have some many interpretations, most of which are wrong because these professing Christians are guided by another other than God. This is nothing new, the beginning of the church is the story of the Apostles confronting false teachers after they rightly established a church. The difference between now and then is the expanse of false teachers, but as the evil expands so does the truth in Gods mercy on His children. The fullness of the gentiles is soon coming to completion as we may see the Uptaker rather than the undertaker in our lifetime.

The bold in blue above is rather disturbing and accusatory in nature and is baseless on anything I have stated since I have been here. I am not assigned to the judgment seat of God, that is Jesus. I do not know anyone here and the only way I can know the truth from error is in a doctrinal sense, but for each individual you can point to a sin being c omitted, but not condemnation judgment in any sense.

 

[Masters_Servant]

No, no point was missed, the point is that all language is subject to multiple interpretations and contexts and translation issues------nothing definite can come out of that–but when you have the Greek and Aramaic ready we can take a shot at it. Thanks

The point is that no Aramaic was given and if it had been, then many passages would have contextual meaning changed, which is why the Greek was given because it has so many nuances to enhance what the speaker is saying that it makes things like Matthew 16:18 very easy to understand, but if the NT was given in Aramaic, then it would be rock on rock with no distinction given the context. This is one of many passages that would have its true interpretation in question. That is the point. A secondary point is that because of the nuances in the Greek, it makes translation into other languages easier to keep the proper context, especially on more difficult passages.

Of course with God, if it was given entirely in Aramaic, He would have made it interpretable because the interpreter is God the Holy Spirit. God bless and hope this clarifies.

 

[Masters_Servant]

In John 2 Mary tells us to do whatever Jesus tells us to do. So as Catholics we listen to the words of Mary as written by John. In John 6, Peter said to Jesus…’’ to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. That’s why for Catholics we listened to the words of Peter as written by John. As Catholics we follow Jesus the way he wanted as to act. Listening to His witnesses is same as listening to Him. Luke 10:16.

It is in fallen human nature that nobody wanted to be told of his faults or how the way to live his life. That’s why many rejected the Papacy because they don’t want to be told of their mistakes. So they must reject the establishment of the Church thru Peter. They rather circuminvent private interpretations to get away. It is already clear in the Bible written in each nations language and still make private interpretations. Almost all Bibles consistently translated the same meaning and still different interpretations were made and then claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit so there should be only one thruth. How sad it is as the Holy spirit having been insulted by many everytime a Person claims he was guided by the Holy Spirit and yet misrepresents other’s beliefs.

LORD grant us PEACE.

How is it determined in Catholicism that the Holy Spirit is the guide as compared to other Christian religions? Is there a Biblical references or some other reference I can look at to support your answer?

 

[Masters_Servant]

Heh…we’re not alone.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

I have quotes like these from 15 more Protestant scholars if you need them.

Never heard of any of these scholars and if this is the most prominent on your list, then the other 15 would be of little use or authority to me.

Also, I asked you a few questions in previous posts that have not been addressed, I thought maybe you may have left the thread, but I see you have not. Start on post #583 on page 39 than move forward.

I’m not sure who denies that “Petros” is a small stone or rock. That would show a blindness beyond understanding given the tools we have to look at the actual Greek meaning of the word.