Posted on 01/05/2010 8:25:32 AM PST by Alex Murphy
JESUS. IT IS BUILT ON THE ROCK, JESUS.
At least you pose a reasonable question..."On what rock, then, is the Church built, if not Peter?"
It is your assumption, not mine, that Jesus has to be referring to a person. Perhaps you believe this because of the "gender" issue, I don't know. But, that Jesus has to be referring to Peter is simply a faulty conclusion reached by the Catholic Church (if you are not Catholic).
My position is that the feminine gender of the noun indicates that He is likely referring to something OTHER than a person. He is likely referring to the statement that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Upon this statement His Church has been built...not Peter. He could have easily said, "...And upon You I will..." or "And upon the Peter (petros) (pointing to Peter as the Catholics try to maintain)"
But, there is a change in gender. And statements, ideas, would carry a feminine gender NOT because they are girls. Gender doesn't necessarily mean boys and girls. This is basic Greek. Gender differences, however, trigger the recognition of a change of subject. In this case, You are "Peter" (petros) and "This something else" (petra) is what I will build on...not Peter.
The church is not built on Peter. The Church is built on Christ and Him being the Son of God. It is a powerful statement that He is the foundation, the Chief Cornerstone. And, in reality, the Body of Christ actually goes all the way back to anyone rescued since Adam. Abraham is our Father of Faith, is he not? Then if our Church goes all the way back to the beginning of human history and the Roman, Latin, Catholic Church begins with Peter...who's is really older?
Be that as it may, what's being discussed here is a particular argument that Dutchboy employed to "refute" the claim that the verse refers to Peter.
Dutchboy says that the gender of "this rock" in that passage is feminine; and he points out that the gender of "this rock" is different from the masculine gender used to name Peter.
Dutchboy concludes that the verse cannot refer to Peter (a male). The unfortunate logical consequence of his argument is that the verse cannot refer to any male.
Jesus, I'm sure you'll agree, was male. And thus, using Dutchboy's logic, "this rock" cannot refer to Jesus (the Christ), any more than it refers to Peter.
I'm sure we agree that this is a ridiculous conclusion ... but that's because Dutchboy's logic is ridiculous.
Now you seem to be suggesting that Jesus (who IS the Christ) was not a human person?!? That was a common heresy, back in the day, but Christians have agreed on His humanity for over 1500 years now....
But the problem remains -- you've got a feminine gender applied to Jesus who, whatever else He may have been, was undeniably male. Your logic still fails.
Always.
There should be a remedial reading class available through Catholic Charities. If there isn't, why don't you suggest one...and then take it.
...says the boy whose logic requires us to reject Jesus' humanity....
Don't presume lecture me, friend, when you've got a logical log in your own eye.
At least I own and eye.
OOOooooooh! Good one!!! And yet you apparently lack a functional nose, because you apparently don't realize just how badly your logic stinks.
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.