Why did Jesus name Simon, "the Rock"?

[De_Maria]

Thou art Peter= petros,=small rock (masculine gender) and upon this Rock (petra=bolder of truth) I will build my Church… and from the Greek it is in a feminine gender, or a neuter gender.)…

No, that’s not true. A small rock in Greek is “lithos”. The reason St. Matthew said, “Petros” is to make the name masculine.

Jesus named Simon, “Rock”, to show that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture:

Exodus 18:14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law,
Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock.

John 21:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,

Jesus, speaking to Simon, names him “Rock”. That is the meaning of the name “Peter”. Heretofore, the only Rock in Scripture has been God. Therefore, Jesus has given Simon, His own name. It means that Simon is now God’s representative upon earth. The rest follows logically.

and upon this rock I will build my church;

Since Peter is Christ’s representative, it is logical that Jesus would organize His Church around St. Peter. This is why we can say that the Church is the Body of Christ. It is Christ’s CORPORATION. St. Peter is the Chief Officer. The Apostles the Board of Directors.

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Again, because Peter is Christ’s representative, it is logical that the Church will prevail against the gates of hell.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Everything which Peter binds upon earth is bound in heaven. Everything he looses upon earth is loosed in heaven. That is not only infallibility. That is also saving power.

 

[po18guy]

The argument in the quote is a red herring. Jesus was not speaking Greek. They incessantly argue small rock or pebble and completely overlook the elephant: Jesus changed Simon bar-Jonah’s name. He does that for a reason.

Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John “whom Jesus loved” at just 29 times. All of the rest even less. Peter is always named first, Judas last. Here is a partial list of unique aspects of Peter:

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
Jesus made Peter shepherd (Feed my sheep).
Jesus told Peter only to strengthen his brothers
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” at the sea of Tiberias.
Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
Peter is always listed first.
Peter alone received the revelation of Jesus as Messiah.
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
Peter entered the empty tomb first - John deferring to him.
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
Peter’s shadow healed.
Peter declared the sin of Simony.
Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
Peter alone received the revelation of the end of the world (elements melting).
Peter alone received the revelation of Christ’s descent to hell/sheol.
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
And on and on and on.

So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing disregard of scripture and history to do so.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

we are not supposed to migrate posts from one thread to a new thread , especially if the point is to refute what the particular post said. As you have done.

forum rules.

 

[po18guy]

Possible exception of derailing, which the pebble/rock argument seems to be(?)

 

[Benadam]

I think because that’s what God does when He has a special mission for someone. A New Name. God chose Peter to hand His Authority to.

The Father chose Peter and the Holy Spirit opened the door to heaven and revealed to him who Jesus is. In Truth. you know the story. Jesus for His part gives Peter the keys. That made Peter able to open or close and to guard the door. That made Peter fit to guard the community that surrounds Jesus. That made Simon fit to be called Peter.

 

[Benadam]

I thought you were spot on

 

[Roseeurekacross]

you have a point

 

[De_Maria]

we are not supposed to migrate posts from one thread to a new thread , especially if the point is to refute what the particular post said. As you have done.

forum rules.

There is no such rule. If there is post it, and provide a link.

This is the rule I’m following.

DISCUSSION FORUMS

Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/faq

The original thread was about salvation by faith and works and it had migrated into several other topics. I intend to start other threads on the other topics that have been started in that same thread, as well. I feel that it is more edifying, if these topics are not buried in the middle of a very busy thread.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

de_maria

in the golden olden days Yes there was a rule. why would it now be different?

we are being moderated, we are able to moderate ourselves,

it was a good rule because people exercised a bit of patience and engaging .
did you let thgodsway know you would like to stsrt a new topic on this and use his/ her quote? and have that chatter agree to have the quote migrated?

thats how it was done and still should be.

so the issue is in using that quote. and starting a new thread with topic.

there were a few infamous incidents that kept mods quite busy.
the issue is not in starting a new topic.

 

[De_Maria]

de_maria

in the golden olden days Yes there was a rule. why would it now be different?

we are being moderated, we are able to moderate ourselves,

it was a good rule because people exercised a bit of patience and engaging .

thats how it was done and still should be.

Again, I’ve provided the rule I was following. Provide the rules and links to the rules you are bringing up.

As for me, I am self moderating by bringing the buried topics out for better attention.

did you let thgodsway know you would like to stsrt a new topic on this and use his/ her quote? and have that chatter agree to have the quote migrated?

That wasn’t part of the old rules or the new. It is assumed that when you post a message on any public forum, you are aware that anyone can use it as long as they give proper attribution. I have done so.

I’ve been on this forum since its inception doing exactly what I’m doing now, no one ever mentioned any of these rules which you seem to be making up as you go along. So, if these rules exist, please provide a copy and a link.

Thanks.

 

[ajcstr]

So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing disregard of scripture and history to do so.

My memory could be WAY off on this but doesn’t Peter in Acts perform similar miracles to what Jesus performed in the gospels?

 

[De_Maria]

de_maria

in the golden olden days …

These, are the golden days.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

You have not provided a rule about migrating quotes.

you provided a rule about new threads.

hope this helps

 

[De_Maria]

You have not provided a rule about migrating quotes.

I have seen no rule against migrating quotes. You are the one suggesting that one exists. Therefore, it is your burden to prove that it exists.

Otherwise, it would appear that you are merely trying to enforce your opinions.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

should we drop all our rules just because we have a new format?

Until you can prove that such a rule ever existed, you can’t claim that it has been dropped. Until you do so, I will go on the assumption that it never existed.

its the same forum.

I’ve been on this forum since it started. And that rule never existed on this very same forum.

now thats a question for everyone.

It’s a loaded question in which you have embedded your unproven claim that one may not migrate quotes. First, you need to prove that this rule existed before you can claim that it did. After you prove that it did, you can ask people to opine whether it should be kept or dropped.

i am making this post wiki so people can add to it.
you can click the icon and comment right on this post .

Thanks.

De_maria,
cool, you worked wiki out and have attributed one use to it.
well done

as far as loaded question, its everyones forum. we all have a right to an opinion and a reply.

everyone Catholic or not, has a right of reply. and whats more, a right to be listened too.

 

[De_Maria]

po18guy:

So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing disregard of scripture and history to do so.

My memory could be WAY off on this but doesn’t Peter in Acts perform similar miracles to what Jesus performed in the gospels?

Yes. He even brought a young lady back to life.

Acts 9:36-43
New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
Peter Restores Tabitha to Life.

 

[po18guy]

He healed the paralytic in Acts 3 and a man named Aeneas in Acts 9. As well, he raised Dorcas from the dead in Acts 9.

 

[De_Maria]

Not to forget that Ananius and his wife died for disobeying St. Peter, Acts 5

 

[po18guy]

I take that to be an example of Peter holding a sin bound, since they were both given the opportunity to repent and did not - a form of final impenitence.

 

[joeybaggz]

Thou art Peter= petros,=small rock (masculine gender) and upon this Rock (petra=bolder of truth) I will build my Church… and from the Greek it is in a feminine gender, or a neuter gender.)…

.
One thing I have always found interesting about the choice of the word rock as applied to Peter is that Moses, while wandering in the desert, brought forth water from a rock at the command of God. Water - life, from a rock. Life giving water from a rock, amazing.

Also, that petros/petra gender bending thing was popular with an anti-catholic televangelist named Jimmy Swaggart in the 80’s. He used the “little pebble” idea to denigrated Peter and the claim of apostolic succession. The biggest defense I could offer has been offered before, and this is that Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke ancient Aramaic and the only word for rock, stone, etc. etc is Kepha. No masculine or feminine, and no justification for Mr. Swaggart’s (and his bastard progeny) position. And it is doubtful that the idea was Swaggart’s originally. It is probably a foundational principal of anti-Catholic pentecostalism.