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.
anything in here about Peter's mother-in-law vs. priestly celibacy?
asking for a friend...
Jesus named peter STONE,not Rock
and you should know better.
Mt 16:18 And 1161 I 2504, 0, 0 say 3004 also 2504 unto thee, 4671 That 3754 thou 4771 art 1488 Peter, 4074 and 2532 upon 1909 this 3778 rock 3588, 4073 I will build 3618 my 3450 church; 3588, 1577 and 2532 the gates 4439 of hell 86 shall 2729, 0, 0 not 3756 prevail against 2729 it.846
.
4073
G4073 ἡ πέτρα, -ας (hē petra, -as) - a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively); Etymology: feminine of the same as G4074; KJV: rock. (Strong)
.
Peter named a piece of a rock, a stone
G4074 ὁ Πέτρος, -ου (ho Petros, -ou) - apparently a primary word; - a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); - as a name, Petrus, an apostle; Etymology: - KJV: Peter, rock. Compare G2786. (Strong)
.
Why Roman Catholics have a problem with reading comprehension on this stuns me. The ROCK Jesus was referring to was the truth Peter spoke of, that “Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
.
Claiming that Jesus said Peter was a ROCK when the whole basis of the Gospel is about the Son Of God come in the flesh to be the messiah, the Savior of the world is the height of blasphemy.
.
But, I’ve told you that many times. You need to repent. It may be too late already, God may have given up on convicting you of sin.
You do realize that 'petra' is a feminine noun, right? 'Pétros' is the masculine form. A feminine noun would not be used as the name of a man.
When translating from the original Aramaic (wherein Jesus said to that effect "Thou art 'Kepha' and upon this 'Kepha'..."), it is natural that Kepha ("כֵּיפָא", which is a masculine word) would be translated to Kephas/Cephas when writing for Greek readers, since leaving out the sigma would have rendered the word a feminine noun.
But let's look at history: in practice, the early Church — based on extant writings from the likes of Tertullian, Clement, Cyprian of Carthage, and others, well before the time of Emperor Constantine — all wrote about the primacy of Peter and his successors.
Furthermore, recall that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, who would have had no concept of an 'ecclesia' or 'church', because all of the Old Testament worship had been geared towards the Temple. This is telling because in Luke's retelling of this event (Luke 9:18-22), the emphasis on Peter and the Rock are not mentioned at all, as it is instead focusing on Christ's crucifixion.
But in Matthew He says, “on this rock I will build MY Church.” To what other Church was he contrasting HIS Church to? The idea of building a Church is interesting because, prior to this time, there was no real concept of church amongst the Jews, but, rather, an assembly (the forerunner of the ecclesia; this is likely why the word was used, since "ekklesia" was the word used to describe the assembly of citizens in the city-states of Athens), which met in a Temple to worship God. What rock was the Temple to be built on? It was built on the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount was, according to Jewish tradition, the site on which God chose to, “rest his Name and Divine Presence”. What was built on top of the Temple Mount? Other rocks. Into those gathered and formed rocks (the Temple), the Holy of Holies was placed.
Jesus said that where two or three were gathered together in His name, there He would be in the midst of them. Thus, the Church to which Jesus was referring must have been a place where two or three (or more) could gather and He would be in their midst as God was in the Temple.
The interpretation of either Jesus as the rock or Peter’s confession of faith as the rock in Matthew 16:18 makes no sense in terms of the context of the passage. This is a Jewish passage, written for a Jewish audience. They would have recognized the importance of the sacred assembly in what Jesus was saying. Jesus is saying that He will build His sacred assembly, his Church, around those people who would gather around Peter, just as the Temple was built around the stones that gathered around the Temple Mount and in this Church His Presence would dwell. In His Church, His presence would be in three ways: in the Eucharist (note that this passage follows the feeding of the five-thousand, which prefigures the Eucharist), in Scripture (in the Temple, the Holy of Holies was the tablet of the Ten Commandments and the Law), and in the People.
It is the people that is the new addition to the formula. In the Old Testament, God dwelled WITH His people. In the New Testament, God dwelled IN His people, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which was merely external to man in the Old Testament because Christ had not yet died and restored man to an intimate relationship with God.
Thus, one may argue that if one wants to understand this passage, one must do so in an anthropological sense. Peter is the person around whom all believers would gather to form the Church which Jesus would build. Now, this is all only possible once the Holy Spirit comes to men after the Resurrection, since it is the Holy Spirit through which God actively dwells when the Church assembles. Thus, the rock of Matthew 16:18 must be capable of receiving the Holy Spirit. This points to a man and the only man mentioned in the passage is Peter.
Lastly: of the Apostles, only Simon, James, and John were given names by Jesus (Peter for the first, and the nickname 'Sons of Thunder' for the latter). These are the only three present who witness His Transfiguration. When God changes someone's name, it is generally indicative of a special grace or meaning for that specific individual (such as when Abram became Abraham, or Jacob became Israel, etc) in their role in the history of God's salvation of mankind.
Why then, in this specific case, would Christ change Simon's name into Peter (if this was indeed the moment Simon's name changed, which is not a given, as Simon is referred to as Peter even earlier on) as a roundabout way of referring back to Himself, instead of specifically indicating what Peter's role would be?
And by the way, these words ("The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.") are just not true:
Luke 22: 31-32 — And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (KJV)
Luke 22: 31-32 — And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Douay Rheims)
When reading this same passage in Greek (Σίμων Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον: ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου. καὶ σύ ποτε ἐπιστρέψας στήρισον τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου.), we get the following literal translation: "Simon Simon, behold, Satan has sifted you to be sifted like wheat: but I have bound you in order that your faith may not fail. And when you return, support your brothers."
It is to Peter that Jesus entrusted the charge and role of confirming his Apostolic brethren. It is to Peter (at the end of John's Gospel) that the task of feeding Christ's lambs and sheep is given, and not to the others.
It is for these reasons (and many more besides) that Peter is remembered as the Prince of the Apostles.
I read what you wrote.
Then I laughed.
You are almost there!
The Living Water is the Holy Spirit and Living God! So it is not Peter, or man, but God who is the Living Teaching Water flowing from within the one He has made Rock (His Authority) to Testify to His Saving Truth!
This is why the Holy Spirit is given to Peter and the Church - it is not man who as the Rock that is Teaching of or from himself, no, it is God in His Rock with His Authority Revealed to him that is Teaching and man (Moses and Peter) who passes on and Teaches in this sense and manner - “Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah, My Rock, for My Father is the One Who Reveals the Truth of Whom I AM to you’ (Mt 16:17). Also the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost for Recalling and Revealing the Truths Jesus Taught them and to lead them consecrated in Truth like Jesus until the end of time so that Peter the Rock may lead the Church in continuing the Mission of Teaching ALL the Truth until Jesus returns in making disciples of all nations’(Mt. 28:20; Jn 14:15-17a, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7, 13; 17:18-19)!
Amen! Alleluia! “This is the Work and Day of the Lord and we are glad and rejoice in IT”!!!
The Living Water is the Holy Spirit and Living God- but He is within Peter, and us, by Baptism we enter into His Sanctifying and Saving Life, participating in the very nature and eternal life of the Triune God, being ‘poured into our heart, soul’ (Rms 5:5), we become ‘a branch of the Vine flowing with the Sap or Holy Spirit the Living Water - what Jesus is saying is that what He did in the OT with Moses and His Seat of Authority, He is bringing to perfection, fulfillment in Peter (Mt 5:17) - ‘God is Teaching in both Both Moses and Peter and so we have to listen and obey, even if they do not keep the Teaching they give, testify to, from God’s Throne of Authority He establishes and places them upon and entrusts to them’ (Mt 23:1-3; Ex 4:12, 15-16).
Peter is the Rock out of which God will Teach and Guide His People with the Holy Spirit in him as Living Water, to and upon, the Narrow Truth that leads to Heaven.
It is not a man as source that is Teaching the Truth, He is made the Rock wherein and where from God is doing the Teaching - so we “have to listen and obey God in them because if we do not we reject God Teaching in Moses or Peter” - Luke 10:16; Mt 23:1-3. Blessings!!!
Jesus said otherwise.
Was Saul of Tarsus (Paul) one of the 12?
Did Saul of Tarsus even know Jesus before Jesus ascended into Heaven?
Would Saul of Tarsus worked as hard as Peter, or would he have teamed up with Judas?
Saul was converted by Christ himself on the road to Damascus. He then became Paul and worked harder than anyone else. He is a master builder, but he is not the foundation of the church.
Christ is the corner stone, but Simon is the foundation.
The history of Catholicism is the history of Jesus Church. He is to this day literally at every mass. We consume, as he commanded, his body. It is his living flesh.
Fair enough. I will concede that the OT was written scripture. How does that discredit the rest of my assertion?
Actually not our 66 book canon, yet which claim provides no more a claim to assured interpretation than than the Jews having produced "all the Scripture" that the Lord Jesus referred to (Lk. 24:27,44) does for those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel as magisterial discerners and stewards of Divine revelation. As was shown you before.
Yet the establishment of a substantial authoritative body of wholly Divinely inspired writings by the time of Christ was not due to conciliar decrees, but as with men of God, the establishment of these writings was essentially due to their Divine qualities and attestation.
Also, protestants mistakenly rely solely on their shortened Bible.
Wrong. in reality, as shown to you at length, The Old Testament of Protestantism is more ancient than that of Rome's, reflecting a more ancient canon held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century, and which is affirmed in Catholicism: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
This does not mean the deuteros are all unworthy of reading, and neither are they of equal quality (Wisdom seems the best to me, and the absurd fable Tobit the worse), and Luther himself included most of them in his translation, separately, as did early Prot. Bibles (later dropped due to lack of demand and to save costs).
There are oral traditions which are needed as well.
Likewise the Orthodox Jews invoke the same in defending their religious tradition.
I was Protestant but when I actually learned about Catholicism the depth and breadth of the Theology and the fact that it is the Church Jesus created and maintains brought me home.
As told you before, "Protestant" can mean many things, while you ignorantly or willfully chose a church whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-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), which includes a false gospel (albeit with many valid teaching whereby a relative few simple pious souls have been saved while within it).
But you have already had your false claims refuted, but as with so many other parrots of prevaricating propaganda, you just tragically persevere in posting the same: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3804202/posts?page=96#96
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4141352/posts?page=25#25
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4141352/posts?page=75#75
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4141352/posts?page=81#81
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=155#155 https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=215#215
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=268#268
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=284#284
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=292#292
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=290#290
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=312#312
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3954151/posts?page=322#322
there is zero in the Bible that says Peter is the foundation.
not once.
Peter is included with the apostles as a group being the foundation.
but there is zero saying Peter is.
5. 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.)
knowing that Jesus had no problem calling Peter a little stone in the feminine form, and neither should you.
You have to admit, you just altered what it said to defend your doctrine.
all I have to do is believe the Bible and use the Bible for doctrine.
On the basis of scripture as the inspired Word of God, we agree.
Where we differ is the purpose of my inference. I am not inferring that scripture is inaccurate. I am merely pointing out that without tradition (i.e. that scripture is the inspired Word of God), there is no basis for scripture.
Sola Scriptura cannot exist because it demands reliance on the word that is only fundamentally-accepted because of tradition. Those who adhere to this philosophy are building a house on sand.
Why else would we say that the Bible, as written, is complete and not subject to additions? How else did we decide that certain books were not ‘inspired by God’?
I have read that all before, what exactly is your point. Please post a point instead of referencing a dense set of apologetics as some sort of self revealing truth.
I could just as easily post links to books and leave it as that but that hardly advances these discussions.
Let us start here
https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1801-1900/immaculate-conception-became-catholic-doctrine-11630497.html
Pope Pius IX declared it an article of faith. Even to this day RC admits there is no scriptural justification so the standard set forth is believe it because we said so and failing to believe this means you will never get to heaven.
Peter can’t be a “rock” of anything, when Jesus yells out that he is literally “Satan.”
And this is who the Catholic church says is their “rock” and founder.
I can’t possibly argue against that, nor can any Catholic.
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.