Did Jesus Truly Say, “I Will Build My Church Upon Peter?”

Jesus was simply saying the kingdom was being taken away from the nation Israel at that time, but it would be given back to the nation in a future day when that nation would demonstrate true repentance and faith.

If what you claim were true, that the kingdom of God was taken away and not given back yet, I should be obeying the Orthodox rabbis.

Matt.23

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Rather, the Messiah took away that authority from "the scribes and the Pharisees", and gave the Jewish Apostles that authority, to bind and loose, as the Israel of God.

Romans 11:

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Now you guys clearly think the Popes HAVE changed Christ's teaching, and I get that. But understand--we don't think Popes have, and we don't even think Popes CAN. So at least argue with us from a correct understanding of our position.

From your understanding, did the Catholic Church change the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first as they claimed to have done?

Homework fir you

You are so wrong it’s pathetic

The original canon did not have the 7 books in question

You can claim all you want even Catholic records prove I am right

Homework fir you

You are so wrong it’s pathetic

The original canon did not have the 7 books in question

You can claim all you want even Catholic records prove I am right

No.

God has not finished with Israel yet, ass Romans and Revelation make clear.

God has not finished with Israel yet

That is surely true.

In 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.

Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

Hint: you only get to a count of 73 books if you include the 7 you threw out.

Do you have a "Catholic record" that proves you right?

Now we see the Catholic Pope joining Satan in his desire to destroy the souls of billions through his heretical stances on things that even the die hard Catholic faithful are appalled by.

However, before I look further, I am sure RCs will argue that pope Francis - often referred to Bergoglio by TradCaths who roundly deplore him has not changed any dogma, which is true, although it is the living pope as head of the "living magisterium" that RCs are to look in understanding doctrine (not that such must be of good character) And not act like evangelical Bible Christians are supposed to in determining the veracity and validity of what leadership teaches by testing it for conformity with past church teaching.

The critical difference here is that, rather than selectively looking to pre-modern RC teaching, Christians are to look to the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels. And in which .distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest .

Including the papacy. Beyond linguistics, the meaning of Petra and Petros is to be understood by how the Lord and Peter are revealed in Scripture as understanding Mt. 16;18. In which the NT church never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.

For in contrast to Peter (“petros”), that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic (and your own appeal to a Hebrew Matthew was dealt with), the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)

It is by the “rock of this faith” that the church not only exists but it gains its members. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) And it is by the essential faith which Peter expressed that church overcomes: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn, 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25)

And linguistical debates never end:

David Garland (“Reading Matthew”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) contending that there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay. And this “changed wordplay” greatly advances the (already likely) scenario that Peter is not “the rock” of that verse.Following on what Garland pointed out, Everett Ferguson, in his “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), also affirms that in the Syriac language, which is a later form of Aramaic, does indeed make the “kepha/tnra” distinction in existing Syriac translations of the Gospel of Matthew:... More, by the grace of God.

And the NT church never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops. Which is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics provides testimony against.

. And which never manifestly saw mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal authority. Unlike king David and the promise of his son Solomon to reign over Israel and his institution as king, (1 Chronicles 29) and the record of his son Rehoboam reigning in his stead (2 Chronicles 9:31) and so forth, the Bible not only does not record Peter�s death but it also does not foretell of a successor or speak of preparations for one. Nor does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)

Furthermore, although Rome's so-called apostolic successors do not claim to be apostles, yet as popes they presume ensured (conditional) infallibility as being an attribute of the apostle Peter and for ecumenical councils with him, though this was not an ensured charism, and Romes popes fail (as I do also) of the overall character, attributes, qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, in all things approving themselves as the ministers of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4; Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

Just for clarity, what is your understanding of why Jesus renamed Simon as Peter other than as a reference to some kind of rock? Thanks

Because Peter was to be the street-level leader among brethren, as the little rock, but not the exalted king Rome made him out to be in seeking to create a Caesario-papacy. See my post above as well as • • Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church. Including falsified history

Perhaps someone can tell me what Peter’s role was after the Crucifixion in Acts.

The Peter of Scripture versus that of Rome

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”

Yet the NT church of Scripture never manifested believers coming or being exhorted to regularly come to clergy to confess and be forgiven of sins in general, as uniquely having power to bind and or loose. See Confession of sins to Catholic priests

Only God forgives sins. The only Mediator is Jesus Christ. We confess our sins to the Father. We do not need to tell our sins to one human go-between who does NOT have the right or ability to forgive sins.

Aside from the invalid Catholic priesthood and its presumed power, there is judicial binding and loosing by those in authority, which flows from the OT, as well as spiritual binding and loosing which is applicable to believers in general, as per Mt. 18. See Confession of sins to Catholic priests

Late and wrong as usual.

Nobody made this ridiculous claim about Christ misusing the adjective "this" to refer to Himself until the 1500's.

This is a prime example of how Protestants, despite their claim of sola Scriptura actually bend the meaning of Scripture to fit their own human traditions rather than accepting the plain meaning of the words themselves.

You forgot to end your explanation/teaching with "Mic Drop! LOL!!

The biblical canon was established during the Synod of Rome in 382 and reaffirmed in the council's of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

Which misleading parroted fallacy has been exposed as such multiple times even here on FR, yet the party line continues. In ignorance or denial of history. In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick in this issue, which was not part of his excommunication by Rome, but had substantial RC support for his non-binding personal opinion (as he expressed it was) on the canon, being just one of many Catholic scholars to express doubt or disagreement before Trent. See Luther and the Canon of Scripture for more.

* And rather than Rome being necessary to know what is of God, an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27) And writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church.

The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

Neither the 397 Ad Council of Carthage nor any other before 1546 provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon for Roman Catholic. Thus scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent. If you dared follow the link you would see that documented.

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) apparently after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),

► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

► "The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;

► “Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).

► As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)

►The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value. (George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oates, 1959), pp. 16-17)

►It may be a surprise to some to know that the “canon,” or official list of books of the Bible, was not explicitly defined by the Church until the 16th century though there was a clear listing as early as the fourth century. (Leonard Foley, O.F.M., Believing in Jesus: A Popular Overview of the Catholic Faith, rev. ed. (St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1985, p. 21)

► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, S.J., A.B., classics, Fordham University, “The Bible, The Church, And Authority;” [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)

► "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291) ^

▀ Prior lists were by councils that were not ecumenical/infallible.

► “...at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense...” (The Catholic encyclopedia, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6099)

► “Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.

► “The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

► “The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)

And invoking the LXX and or the DSS is to fail to prevail.

The apocryphal books were not in it then.

Rather, they were generally held as part of a second canon by part of Catholicism, yet not dogmatically defined until Trent. See my post above on this and links, by the grace of God.

I’d also point out that Jesus didn’t have to rename Simon years into his life just to point out obvious personality characteristics that Simon had for all of his adult life.

With this we’ll be content.

I wish you a very good ‘24!

You are fighting a claim Catholics don't make.

"The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon"

We only claim that the canon was established then. We make no claims about an earlier "infallible" canon.

The simple reason is that "infallible" statements are typically reserved to oppose a heresy, which is what the point of the statement emanating from the Council of Trent.

Catholic doctrine has many long held beliefs that were not declared infallibly until they were challenged by heresy.

The reason Protestants fight Christ's declaration that He's building his church upon "this" rock (Peter), is that this is the basis by which each of you declares yourself Pope, with the Divine authority to interpret Scripture.

You assign yourself this authority which you deny to the Pope, and the result is thousands of differing interpretations of Scripture, which clearly conflict with each other, and have no path for resolution.

The only thing you all agree on is John 3:16 and hate Catholics.

And rather than Rome being necessary to know what is of God

When I read the NT, I see: A church that was initially led and governed by the apostles. The church and leaders (James. Peter, others) in Jerusalem were preeminent. E.g., Paul was careful to seek counsel, agreement and blessing from the Jerusalem church. What you didn't have was every man interpreting Jesus' words or deciding what it means to be a follower of Christ. Yes, there were disagreements, but they were settled or apostates were identified and rejected.

There's no other way to say it but the church has been fragmented for a long time. Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian, 200 major Protestant denominations, thousands of independent Protestant denominations - all to one degree or another are in disagreement with the other.

Jesus is returning for a church without spot or wrinkle. I believe this will be a church that is one like Jesus and the Father are one, a body that is truly in agreement where every part is 'fully accepted' by the other.

"If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. " - 1 Cor 12:15-26