Was Peter the "Rock"?

Cornerstone Church ^

[Sir Gawain]

Was Peter the "Rock"?

Question: Was Peter the "rock" on which Jesus will build His church?

Answer: Here is the passage that you are referring to:

Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

Matthew 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning "a pebble." The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra. Everyone who receives this revelation from the Father like Peter received it—that Jesus is the Son of God (Lord and Savior)—becomes a part of His Church.

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size.

Matthew 7:24-25 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock (petra). And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock (petra)."

Jesus was talking about building upon bedrock, not a pebble.

The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus is the foundation upon which we build our lives:

1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The apostle Peter also informed up that every believer is a "stone" and that Jesus Christ is the "cornerstone" or foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-6 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed."

Every believer is a stone in Christ’s Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.

[la$tminutepardon]

Yes, the Lord's Prayer. And did He say, Pray to Moses, pray to Isaac, pray to Jacob, and oh, don't forget Sara and Leah and .....Or, did He say, Peter will die and you'll be the only one left John, so pray to Peter, after all he's the rock?

Don't think so.

[Gophack]

As mentioned before, throughout Scripture Jesus and His apostles asked fellow Christians to pray for them. And as I posted above, there is scriptural evidence that shows the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God.

Catholics don't pray to anyone except God through His son, Jesus Christ. But we ask Mary and the saints to pray for us because we believe their prayers are particularly effective. This doesn't mean that we don't believe our prayers are effective, because they are. It means that when something is really important ... like ending abortion ... we can use all the help we can get, and asking the saints in heaven to pray for unborn babies will help.

It seems that Catholics can say over and over and over against that we don't pray TO saints, that we ask saints to pray TO God FOR us, but some people don't want to listen. I can only pray TO God and ask the saints to pray TO God FOR you and our fellow brothers and sisters who still have a problem understand the Catholic Christian position on intercession.

God bless, and I will be praying for you.

[la$tminutepardon]

No, it's not that we don't want to listen. Praying to dead people is unscriptual and you are somehow blind to your error. Perhaps you should actually read and study the Scriptures. Imagine if you die, and someone who liked you started praying to you. I myself would be horrified if it was me, and I'm sure that the saints now dead in the Lord, are horrified as well. Praying to, and praying for, are two different things. If nothing else you cause others who are weaker brothers to be led astray, rather than telling them the truth. Like angel worship. They don't know the difference because their brothers don't step up and lead them.

[Gophack]

Again, we do not pray TO saints, we ask saints to pray TO God FOR us, just like I might ask my husband to pray FOR me before surgery, or I might pray FOR my daughter before her big dance recital. If I die, I first hope that I am in a state of grace to go to heaven, and if I am blessed to see the glory of God, I would praise God and pray TO Him for everyone I loved.

[la$tminutepardon]

Well then what was the purpose for Christ's death and ripping the veil from top to bottom so that we could approach God directly? Don't you think you afront Him by going to dead people first? The theology is clear-- pray only to the Father. Call no man Father. Your prepositions to and for are Clintonesque -- Mary's no different from all the other dead in Christ, Moses, Miriam, Uncle Pete. Ypu break the first commandment by praying to Mary and the rest. You have to pray to her since she's not here in the body-- if she was, I'd ask her to pray for me too, as I would any other human. -- If it wasn't an important thing, it wouldn't be the first commandment.

[BibChr]

I am glad for your work in opposing abortion.

Nothing prevented Jesus from using the masculine petros twice, as He likely might have done (— that or one of numerous other options) had He meant, contrary to the context, to be introducing some notion of building something not on Himself or the truths of His person, but on Peter.

The idea that the Roman Catholic church is a product of any sort of "succession" from the apostles is not one that a Bible believer would entertain seriously. No sect so hostile to central teachings of the Bible could trace its origins thus.

Future unity is unlikely, barring apostasy among professing Christians. Consider two "religious" people.

One person trusts in Jesus plus self-effort shown in a program of virtue and religion to save him. To Him "Savior" is one of Jesus' titles.

Another trusts in Jesus to save him, and he lives according to His Word for God's glory out of sheer gratitude by the grace of God. To Him "Savior" describes who Jesus IS and what He DOES. Not "co-savior," not "assistant." "Savior."

Between the two positions is an eternity of difference that all the good-will and affection in the world cannot paper over.

Dan
How Can I Know God?

[Paulus Invictus]

Could it possibly be that the groom at the wedding had to provide the wine? Hmmmm! What a concept!

[Paulus Invictus]

Sounds reasonable if one uses the whole scripture as a guide.

Oh, by the way re "Rocky." The word rocky is"petrodes" in Greek. Are we having fun yet with these translations of words?

[TheBattman]

"Mother Mary, Full of Grace....." So you need Mary's grace? No, you need the grace of Jesus Christ, not Saint this, Saint that, Saint the other, or Mary..... Some "brands" of Christianity try to make things so complicated. The blueprint for the true church is as close and easy as opening your Bible and studying both the actual words of Christ and the teachings of the deciples He left in charge of the Church when he HE ascended to Heaven.

[la$tminutepardon]

Could it possibly be that the groom at the wedding had to provide the wine? Hmmmm! What a concept!

Now I can say the magic words, to wit:

I think so!

[CyberAnt]

Exactly - the secret is to use the whole scripture to rightly divide what Jesus was saying.

And ... yes, it is a difficult task trying to decipher motives of the heart from another person's words.

[Paulus Invictus]

It is not just difficult, it is impossible at this remove (2000 years). Just think of the complexities involved: decifering scriptures that may or may not have been written in the earliest Christian times by who knows who in three or four different, now obsolete or dead languages. Almost all of the originals have been lost and "re-constructed" later over the centuries. Copies upon copies were made and many words or phrases may have ben changed over time in meaning due to huge cultural and religious biases of the scribes. That we have any coherence left in the Bible at all is amazing.

[Spar]

I implied his Joseph needed to speak Greek in Egypt to work. Children are sponges. Even a few months in Egypt and Jesus would have picked up a large vocabulary of Koine (common tongue) Greek. I have heard the argument that Jesus and Joseph were not simple woodworkers, but stone masons, etc. If so, the largest employer of such craft were the pagans for their temples and public works. The Romans spoke Greek in all public activities (High born Romans preferred to speak Attic Greek rather than their native Latin). Jesus probably never uttered a word in Latin other than the Greek pronunciation of Caesar's name (Kesaros). By the way, execution by crucifixion was introduced to the Romans by the Greeks and Jesus would have been told that he would be killed by stavrosma.

Final note, the need to distance St. Peter from the Jesus comment is a concern for some protestants for obvious reasons.

[Carry_Okie]

Some of us read it for a background education in what people believe and how they structure their justifications to be substantiated by further study. In that respect alone these threads do serve a vauled purpose.

[maro]

Technicalities aside, does God really have a taste for puns, and would He have made a pun the foundation on which He built His Church?

[la$tminutepardon]

And Paulus, for our many friends and lurkers who refuse to study, what was in the jars that turned into wine, exactly? Yes, you are right, they were jars meant for the purification, for washing. But what else? Yes, they contained ashes! What kind of ashes, exactly? Ashes of the Red Heifer!

My you are bright, Paulus!

[woollyone]

"Again, we do not pray TO saints, we ask saints to pray TO God FOR us"

So, you don't pray to the saints, you ask them huh?.

So, the next question would be...How do you ask them. Would it happen to be through prayer perhaps? Crystal ball? Miss Cleo? That guy on TV who talks to dead people? Tarrot cards? Ouigi board?

Let's go one step further...
Essentially, you "talk" to the dead people, though some other means than prayer...but in order to ask them, you certainly must be in communication with these dead people.

Do you think that communicating with dead in any fashion people is OK (regardless of the Biblical admonition not to do so)?

...depends on what the definition of the word "pray" is...

Lastly, what exactly, in your view is prayer?
Wouldn't it casually be defined as communicating/talking to...?

In summary, regardless or your creative verb usage, it sounds like you do pray to dead people after all.

Let me put this in the form of a very simple analogy...

God is the Judge of all men
Jesus, is the Son of the Judge, and is the ready advocate (lawyer), Who is ready and willing to provide any man an aquittal through His connections to His Father the Judge. What a better attorney could any man ask for than the Son of the Judge?

Before walking into court, each man already knows that he will be found guilty and punished. But the Judge's Son has already offered a free gift of forgiveness if the defendant will allow the Judge's Son to defend him...to be his propitiation.

Given such a direct line to aquittal available to every defendant...
why would anyone choose to through another guilty convict, to serve as a laison, to have a talk with the Judge's Son so the Judges Son could talk with the Judge, when the defendant could go directly to the Judge's Son for himself?

Would seem rather silly don't you think?

[woollyone]

"That we have any coherence left in the Bible at all is amazing."

The tactic of questioning the reliability and integrity of God's Word is a very old tactic, yet is still being used to this very day by the first liar's current representatives
...nothing new under the sun.

[the808bass]

Has any Freeper ever changed his mind or even thought much about points made by opposing views on the religious threads? Be honest, and give examples.

On this particular discussion point I have indeed changed my mind. On the NeverEnding Threads I decided (tho I be a proddie) that Peter was indeed the rock. What that means does not necessarily lead down the RCC road. FWIW

[don-o]

The main point should be is what is St Peter's role? He certainly never made an "infallable statement" "ex cathedra". Ancient Christianity knew of no such thing. Decisions were made by councils of bishops and were ratified over the years by the Church at large with the leading of the Holy Spirit. Rome lead the first Protestant "reformation" in 1054 and completed her estrangement from the "one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in 1880 with the dogma of papal infallibility. Orthodox Christianity has kept to the old road and has preserved the faith once delivered to the saints.