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.

[Campion]

We don't know for sure whether the Gospels were written first in Aramaic or not, or for that matter whether Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other or to the Jewish crowds in Aramaic.

But, as I pointed out, we do know that Peter was called "Rock" in Aramaic, because there is, AFAIK, no other possible origin for the name "Cephas".

[austen]

You are correct -- we know that Jesus spoke in Aramaic from Mark 15:33 ("Eloi, Eloi, lema sabacthani"). He almost certainly spoke Hebrew as well, but there is no evidence that he spoke Greek. Peter is Cephas.

[jrherreid]

QUESTION: 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.

Oh no! It's Obvious Man!

[Gophack]

Or do we automatically load the apologetic ammo and fire?

I agree with you which is why I don't post the original articles; however, I do find it hones my apologetics skills to debate in a relatively friendly (usually) forum, so that when I go out in the real world, I am better prepared to defend my faith and spread the Word of God.

God bless.

[The_Reader_David]

The majority of patristic commentary on this passage shows the most early Christians regarded Peter's confession as the rock on which the Church would be built.

If it does not die quickly, this thread will be very dull and predictable. Adherents of the papal throne of Rome will argue vociferously, citing many quotes from the minority of the fathers who held the view that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built to support their ecclesiology. Protestants and any Orthodox who actually hang around (I certainly don't plan to) will argue the contrary position, citing other passages of scripture (for the protestants) or (for the Orthodox) scripture, quotations from the fathers who held the view that his confession was the rock, and the acta of the Holy Ecumenical Councils which attribute the primacy of honor shown the Bishop of Rome to the fact that Rome was the imperial capital.

As I say, it will be very dull and very predictable.

[la$tminutepardon]

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God

There's your Rock.

[SoothingDave]

As I say, it will be very dull and very predictable.

I knew you were gonna say that. :-)

SD

[Dumb_Ox]

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.

There was a whole thread devoted to this question, posted some time back. HERE it is. I do wish these sorts of polemical religious debates would stay on the Never-Ending Story thread, just to keep the site uncluttered.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Yes he was, it was to him that Christ gave stewardship of the apostles and the disciples. Peter was given the elevated spot as the his principle leader on earth once he left. However, I do understand the disagreement that protestants have with this statement. But as a Roman Catholic, Peter was given stewardship over this mission, of course, we all know that Jesus watched Peter and his hand can be seen in the actions of the early church (Paul). But it is a tricky and sticky issue. Catholics and Protestants are best agreeing to disagree.

[Arthur McGowan]

Have you read Post #6 yet?

[stylin19a]

hmmmmmmmm...ok, I see your point. I've changed my mind.

[don-o]

Biblical Christianity concerns itself specifically with thinking Biblically; it is not content with foggy concepts of thinking "Christianly"

Dan's point one of seventeen.

I'll admire a man who will lay out his markers. But, what's to stop me from laying down MY 17 markers and calling them Biblical Christianity? But, the term itself is problematical. Biblical Christianity as opposed to what? Non-Biblical Christianity?

In the other 16 points, we find all sorts of "outs" in order to let us create our own version of the "faith once delivered..."

I find it more profitable to search for that faith.

Dan believes, (correct me if I am wrong, please Sir) that the faith that was delivered, got lost. And his calling is to reconstruct it.

I believe that it is possible to find it, intact, on earth today.

[Malcolm]

The Catholic Church is into so much error (non-Scriptural beliefs and tenets), and its followers are so defensive, that you can not tell them that the Catholic Church is a mere human organization; they will not accept this, regardless of it's merit. But Jesus is the rock, not Mary, not Peter, not the current Pontiff, nor anyone other than He himself. A lot of protestant organizations aren't much better, (some support homosexual marriage, etc). The Church is Jesus, and every Christian is a representation of the Church, in the spiritual sense, not the physical one. I consider Catholics allies in politics, some cultural aspects, so I am no enemy of Catholicism. But if truth matters at all, all errors, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, must be revealed and corrected. If the followers of Jesus are not for truth, and a better understanding of what Scripture instructs us to do and to not do, what is left? Hopefully not blind adherence to religion.....

[don-o]

Nice.

Too bad for all the energy wasted on "sound and fury."

I'm hoping that somehow, this tool we have might be used for more that indulging the passions.

Away from the keys for a while. I hope that some folks might post about the ultimate worth of religious discussions here. I mostly stay away, because I doubt they have any worth. I want evidence to the contrary.

[BibChr]

Actually, Jesus had already changed Peter's name at an earlier point. And He carefully distinguishes, in the inerrant Greek text we possess, between petros (masculine; Peter, proper name) and the petra (feminine; large mass) upon which He would build his church. Had He meant Peter, there are so many ways He could have expressed the idea more clearly in Greek. Language and context and damningly against the notion.

Dan

[Freemyland]

That may be the funniest post I have ever seen.

[Notforprophet]

LOL

[Campion]

Had He meant Peter, there are so many ways He could have expressed the idea more clearly in Greek.

Name one.

[BibChr]

You must have a defective browser!

It seems not to have displayed the

OVER FORTY DIRECT SCRIPTURE CITATIONS

that formed the direct basis for those observations.

No, it was never lost. It has been revealed in the Son and through His apostles and prophets (Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:1-4), and hasn't changed since.

Dan

[Notforprophet]

QUESTION: 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.

I dunno... I was raised evangelical Christian, my folks were, are missionaries in Latin America today... but I still question, I still wonder, I still doubt.

Humanism is SO seductive...

Notforprophet