Posted on 01/08/2024 1:18:20 PM PST by OneVike
Until now I have not shared my opinion of what I think of the many inherent ways the Catholic Church has misinterpreted Scripture throughout the years. I can no longer be silent on the subject, because it is one that the Catholic Church has used to teach heresy.
To begin with, the Catholic Church has been making a mockery of Scripture for many years. There are many beliefs the Catholic Church holds that I have problems with, but for now I will explain why they are wrong in their interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which Christ has built His church.
Jesus is the ONLY foundation which His church can and is built upon. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and we need to keep our eyes on him, not some man chosen by flawed men. We need not pay attention to what color of smoke is billowing from a building built by flawed men to learn who the voice of God will be, because we already know. We are to look to no one else as the foundation or the hope on which the church is built, but Jesus, The Son of God.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
When Peter answered Jesus by stating,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,”
(Matthew 16:16)
Jesus answered and said to 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 also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:17-18)
To begin with, when you look at the original wording of Matthew, it was written in Koinonia Greek, which was the language of the common man in the day of Christ. Koinonia Greek was what today’s modern American English is to everyone from America to Korea, the universal language spoken around the world. So when you look at the original language Matthew was written in you will see something that is not readily apparent. When Jesus said,
“…you are Peter [(πΠέτρος) (petros)] and upon this
Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] I will build My church…”
(Matthew 18a)
Greek nouns have genders, which is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, “petros”, is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as, “Petros.” But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine, “petros”, rather the feminine, “petra.”
A good example of this would be Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, where he refers to Jesus as the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert;
“and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were
drinking from a spiritual rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petras)] which
followed them; and the Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] was Christ.”
(1Corinthians 10:4)
It must be pointed out that in Peter’s 1st letter, he refers to Jesus as the “Rock”,
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will
by no means be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28:16)
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,” (Psalms 118:22)
“A stone of stumbling”
And
“a Rock of offense.” (Isaiah 8:14)
(1Peter 2:7-8)
So the word translated in this passage is not the same word as Peter, and nothing can be more wrong than to suppose Jesus meant Peter the person. It’s ludicrous to claim that Jesus would build HIS church upon a sinful flawed individual. HE emphatically stated HE would build it upon the “truth” of which Peter recognized. That truth being, “Jesus is The Christ, The Son of The Living God!” Something we know Peter himself understood by reading his first epistle, as I pointed out above.
Thus if Peter himself used the word, “petra” to refer to Jesus, then shouldn’t we? We can also see where Paul referred to Jesus as the rock, “petra”.
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense,
and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
(Romans 9:33)
We also see the word, "Rock," used throughout the Old Testament to refer to GOD.
“The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just;
a God of faithfulness and without injustice.”
(Deuteronomy 32:4)
“The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my Rock, in whom I take refuge.”
(2 Samuel 22:2-3)
“And who is a Rock, except our God.”
(Psalms 18:31)
“Is there any God besides Me, or
is there any other Rock? I know of none.”
(Isaiah 44:8)
Finally, I challenge anyone to prove to me that, at any time in the Scriptures, GOD ever referred to any man as a rock. However, throughout Scriptures we are told about the perfection of the Rock which is Christ, not a sinful man named Peter. So why would Jesus build His church upon an unstable human who needs to be saved? He wouldn't, and He didn't. It should be obvious from the Word of God that the Rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the
one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
Honestly, I think you’re safe in your methodology. Don’t remember the exact part of Scripture but there’s something along the lines of measuring what you believe by the Word and if it doesn’t fit with what God gave us in His word then your beliefs are wrong.
prayers up brother for a great surgery!
going to have my periodic (10 year) thyroid cancer treatment later this month. don’t expect any surprises, but prayers appreciated.
13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Thus we see this sequence:
Then why the Petros / petra distinction? Simple. As the author has pointed out, Greek has grammatical genders. Petra (feminine) was the ordinary form of the word "rock." But this would not be proper for a man's name. Thus in the translation from Aramaic to Greek the feminine petra was changed into the maculine Petros.
In the end, the author's argument is with our Lord's use of Kipa (rock) in addressing Peter. 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.
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
This is a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father!
Yeaaaah...NO
Five verses later, Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Satan!
A hindrance!
Peter was not focussed on God, but “things of man”
Peter isn’t the rock.
The rock is the truth which Peter spoke “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The answer to the OP headline question is: NO.
Even basic grammar (both English and the original Greek) simply don’t suggest Jesus building His church on Peter (a person) - but on what PETER said in response to Jesus’ question: His profession of faith in WHO Jesus is.
Bingo!
Jesus said this rock, not on you, Peter. A few verses down, Jesus is rebuking Peter.
Isn't that what the Church is though? A divine institution (His church) built on and made of flawed human elements (Peter the Rock, and you and me as the bricks).
The earliest versions of the New Testament were prepared by missionaries, to assist in the dispersion of the Christian faith among peoples whose native tongue were in Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. These versions have their origin in the second and third centuries.
Matthew himself wrote his Gospel, and he wrote it as we have it now, in Greek.
. . . Matthew not only seems to have been written in Greek but also to have drawn on sources which were at least predominantly in Greek.
Biblical Archaeology Society Online Archive reports that no “original Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the Gospels have ever been recovered.” That is, there is no proof that Matthew was every written in anything but Greek. Period!
If this church was built on Peter he must be a fag
Of course not!
Nor did Jesus Christ walk on water or rise from the dead. Right, madison?
USING sinful flawed humans is a far cry from building His church on one.
So you accept Francis as the legitimate pope?
How can you do that when your religion is claimed to be founded on sinful flawed human beings? Francis is a sinful, flawed human being. Why accept Peter and not which ever of his alleged successors you happen to agree with or disagree with?
If the office of the pope is what you all claim how can you not submit to its authority no matter who holds the positions?
This is the very same reason that Jesus chastised the Pharisees (aside from their hypocrisy); they were basing most of their beliefs upon Jewish tradition, instead of true faith in God. In fact, they elevated tradition above all else. They were also focused upon a works-based salvation, which is false.
Regardless of the denominational badge that you wear, the only thing that will save you is God’s grace alone, by faith in Christ alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Works are the EVIDENCE of salvation, not its CAUSE. If anything other than simple faith is required for salvation, then Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was insufficient. No one can read all that the Bible says about salvation and reach any other conclusion. The claim that faith “plus” works (or anything else) is necessary for salvation is simply heresy. And claims that anyone other than Jesus is the mediator between man and God, or that a mortal man is “infallible”, or that men should pray to any sinful human are ALL nothing less than blasphemy.
To put a finer point on it: The pope is just as sinful and fallible as the rest of us, and he certainly has not usurped Jesus’ exclusive authority to act as the sole mediator between man and God. And praying to Mary or any of the endless and arbitrary list of Catholic “saints” is flat-out blasphemous and an abomination.
Catholicism only brings people to faith in Catholicism and all it's rules and rituals.
Scripture is enough to lead one to Christ and the Catholic church is NOT responsible for that, the Holy Spirit is.
Why is it "this" rock, then? What is the "this" referring to?
A few verses down, Jesus is rebuking Peter.
Sure. But no one ever said Peter was beyond rebuke. He just was given a job to do.
Why does Jesus's church filled with sinful people need a perfect person to head it?
It’s all a power grab. The Catholic religion is trying to establish itself as the final authority over all Christendom and anyone who names the name of Christ.
They control people with the threat of damnation for not toeing their line.
For your further edification:
Lessons about Francis (The Destroyer) from St. Robert Bellarmine’s Objections to Protestants
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.