Posted on 06/28/2023 4:27:11 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.
(Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.
(John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.
Which brings us back to Mathew 16:17-19 (the supposed purpose of this thread):
‘And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”’
Doesn’t really matter if it is a ‘pebble’ or giant concrete slab. Simon (Jesus uses his legal name at the start) would become the ‘rock’ upon which Jesus would build his church.
If you don’t like this simple reasoning, take your complaint to The Lord, but do not try to confuse His lambs.
If he's not the "Rock," then he's just one of twelve dudes who were early followers of Christ.
I don't think it's blasphemy to suggest that Peter was different than the others. Even the strongest and most virtuous of men need leaders. Imagine that.
I’m on work deadlines.
Only have time for this, you’re taking Acts 17 out of context.
a) what things were they checking?
Paul’s assertions that (the Jewish Scriptures, what we now call the O.T.) predicted Jesus.
Of course they’d look up the Scriptures to check claims about what those Scriptures said.
b) How do you get from that, a claim that the New Testament letters are the only guide to Christian doctrine (and we don’t have the new Testament dropped out of heaven, whole and complete in a handsome leather-bound volume in King James English. I t was believers after the fact who decided what and what wasn’t “canonical” : divinely inspired. It is the divine inspiration which makes the difference. And you have to *trust* that those who decided on canonicity were properly following the Holy Spirit. ...and that also means, that it’s possible that those defining creeds, refuting heresy, and deciding theology, were led by the Holy Spirit too.)
It all goes down to
Sola Scriptura
vs
The Church has a role in teaching and defining the Faith...which happens to include interpretation of Scripture.
After many years of eagerly promoting the former, I have come over time to be convinced of the latter.
Here’s a great resource along these lines:
The Catholic Controversy : St. Francis de Sales - Archive.org
See:
ARTICLE 6 – THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE
CHAPTER 1 – FIRST AND SECOND PROOFS. OF THE FIRST PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER: “UPON THIS ROCK I WILL
BUILD MY CHURCH.”
CHAPTER 2 – RESOLUTION OF A DIFFICULTY
CHAPTER 3 – THIRD PROOF. OF THE SECOND PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER: “AND I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS OF
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”
CHAPTER 4 – FOURTH PROOF. OF THE THIRD PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER: “I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE ...”
The Catholic Controversy Page 5
CHAPTER 5 – FIFTH PROOF. THE FULFILLMENT OF THESE PROMISES: “FEED MY SHEEP”
CHAPTER 6 – SIXTH PROOF. FROM THE ORDER IN WHICH THE EVANGELISTS NAME THE APOSTLES
CHAPTER 7 – SEVENTH PROOF. OF SOME OTHER MARKS WHICH ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE SCRIPTURES
OF THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER
CHAPTER 8 – TESTIMONIES OF THE CHURCH TO THIS FACT
CHAPTER 9 – THAT S. PETER HAS HAD SUCCESSORS IN THE VICAR-GENERALSHIP OF OUR LORD. THE CONDITIONS
REQUIRED FOR SUCCEEDING HIM
CHAPTER 10 – THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME IS TRUE SUCCESSOR OF S. PETER AND HEAD OF THE MILITANT CHURCH
CHAPTER 11 – SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE LIFE OF S. PETER, AND OF THE INSTITUTION OF HIS FIRST SUCCESSORS
CHAPTER 12 – CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE ABOVE BY THE TITLES WHICH ANTIQUITY HAS GIVEN TO THE POPE
CHAPTER 13 – IN HOW GREAT ESTEEM THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE OUGHT TO BE HELD
CHAPTER 14 – HOW THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THIS AUTHORITY
According to Christ all but the elect would follow the fake Jesus.. carry on.
Don’t try to burst “their” bubble. The brainwashing has been too extreme.
OK, you win. I will start to believe just like you that the miracles Jesus performed are exactly like him calling Simon Peter. And I will start to believe like you believe that he placed his entire church up on the shoulders of a human being. And I will start to believe like you believe That his message is much less important than the idea that you have in your head that Peter, a human being is somehow the foundation of his church. So I would imagine like you do that somewhere in heaven, Simon Peter, sitting at a desk, administering the church of Jesus Christ on the Earth .
Deuteronomy 32, also known as the Song of Moses, would have been known by Peter.. imagine that, Moses was a Christian before Peter..
your failure to read deeper into what I clearly showed the error in why you said I said too much.
You didn’t read enough.
Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek, he spoke in Aramaic.
What is a Cephas?
Πέτρος (Petros*) is simply Greek (naturally, because the New Testament was written in Greek) for the name Jesus actually gave him in Aramaic: כיפא (Kefa—Rock).
* A name for a man cannot be the bare (feminine) word for rock in Greek (Petra) and so is made into a masculine name form: Petros. It has nothing to do with a big rock and a small rock; such is nonsense and destroys the grammatical connection of ‘this’ with ‘rock’.
Not refuting that … using that argument, one could suggest that Elijah was, too.
After all, Moses and Elijah were on the mountain with Jesus while Peter, James, and John watched, right?
Still, Moses did not build the Christian Church … Peter did.
I have not taken it out of context. The were commended for searching the scriptures as to the truth of what was spoken to them.
So you are trying to tell me searching the scriptures for the truth of someone presenting God’s word to you is not at all what that scripture means? At this point I see no further discussion needed if that is your position, you are literally telling me to not believe what I read because it does not mean what it says.
If my only understanding of the scriptures must be approved by some religious figures opinion, which now appears to be you position you are now in cult territory.
You would have an intermediary tell you how to properly worship and understand God as a superior opinion over your best and faithful understanding. That is one of the concepts that lead to paid dispensations. Yes the RC church eventually disavowed the practice but also it was some of the RC leaders that instituted the policy and people believed in it because they were told so by those leaders.
You create a model were bad faith leaders, of which the RC church has many examples, send those people to hell precisely because they believed their oral doctrine over God’s word.
Yes our Lord does put people in our life to help us understand His Word and guide us when we lack knowledge. I have never seen any justification though where anyone is called to accept blindly and against one’s own best understanding as an apodotic doctrinal truth for your personal faith.
I was raised Catholic, and here is a very personal response, I have been told by faithful Catholics (yes plural and yes some that represent the RC Church) I should stop reading the bible if it causes me to question the clergy, that is an absolute non-starter and where you appear to be headed with this.
You need to learn Greek and read the the Bible in the original Greek. You are interpretation is based on understanding of the English language not Greek nor the Jew People
It is a ignorant question since: Where is the claim by RaceBannon that Peter is not supposed to have a special role to play in salvation history? His substantiated claim was basically that, "He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical."
As for why is Peter mentioned almost 200 times in the Gospels, while John, who is unquestionably Jesus Christ’s most beloved disciple, is mentioned fewer than 50 times? partly because there are 4 gospels, 3 of which are snyoptical, and humble John, who, unlike Peter, actually wrote one of the 4 gospels, is overall reluctant to name himself.
And partly because Peter was the street-level leader among brethren, whom the church is never shown looking to as the the first of a line of infallible popes, (see The Peter of Scripture versus that of Rome), while after the gospels (or even by including just Matthew) Paul by far is the apostle mentioned the most.
See the parody 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy, using popular Catholic reasoning (which is often strained).
The Bible says nowhere that Peter had any supremacy nor that he gained it or lost it, but that once he preached to Cornelius, Catholics claim that Peter was, therefore, the apostle to the Gentiles and is, therefore, the leader of the Church, yet, Acts chapter 8 has Phillip witnessing to the Ethiopian eunuch, a gentile also, converting him to Christianity. Yet, no one claims Phillip was that foundation.
.
Scripture says something completely different on what the foundation is, try quoting scripture to help your point.
.
this reference says ALL the apostles are the foundation:
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
.
Paul, here, says Jesus is the foundation
1Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
.
Paul himself in Galatians said Peter was the apostle to the Jews, yet Catholics always contradict scripture and cling to doctrine, instead of clinging to scripture to make their doctrine:
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Peter means “stone” in Greek, while Cephas is “stone” in Aramaic.
Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon “Cephas.” John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that “Cephas or Kephas” meant “a stone.”
St. Paul have used kepha to emphasize St. Peter’s role (as his name signifies) as the Rock or leader of the Church (such as emphasizing that he had to even rebuke the ‘Rock’ of the Church, when it was called for).
I do not presume to understand what role Peter is playing in heaven. As for administering his church, Peter, like Moses, handed his mantle to his prime successor before he departed this earth. Thus, the line of succession began.
As for Jesus’ message, how could you possibly understand what that message really is?
Solo Scriptura? None of scripture existed until about 30 years after the ascension of Jesus. It was all merely oral tradition. Only two of the gospel writers were actually there, and they were writing from memory that was quite dated at the time! What can you vividly remember from 30 years ago?
Why do you believe any of St. Paul’s writings hold any merit? Jesus never referred to Paul, other than Paul’s own account. Is this why it is so easy for Protestants to believe in the Gospel according to Billy Bob, or whomever the latest preacher is?
I think you need to reassess your statement.
I doubt you will find anyone that would suggest Peter is the Rock of Salvation.
Peter is merely the rock upon which Christ would build His Church.
Ooo, look, the argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate)...how sadly predictable.
ok...let’s just stick with the names shall we?
Jesus called the man three names
Simon bar Jonah
Peter
...and...Satan.
With this alone it is obvious that Jesus didn’t build His kingdom upon satan. This alone refutes the Peter = rock nonsense. And I’ll take Jesus word before your prideful argumentum ab auctoritate every day.
You need to stop bossing around my reading needs.
The text speaks for itself and it isn’t amazing in the least that NOBODY wants to even address the problem I just mentioned.
Jesus didn’t build His kingdom upon Satan.
Do some reading of the plain biblical text first, then think through your own obvious RCC theological contradictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.