Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
Yet, Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic when talking with the Apostles, as agreed by most historians.
The interpretation that Jesus is the rock and not Peter is consistent with the rest of the body or Scripture. So the Catholic interpretation is wrong.
Yes, I understand that is your opinion.
I absolutely know why. The Holy Spirit caused the NT mss to be preserved in Greek because it was/is God’s will. Iow, Greek was the language God particularly chose for NT Scripture.
Unless your argument is that it was God’s will to preserve the mss in Aramaic and His will was thwarted by someone or something, there is no possible doubt on the point. Do you actually believe God is incapable of selecting the right language for the revelation of His Word, and also incapable of following through with His selection?
And to be clear, I didn't mean the Greek NT is a translation from an Aramaic NT. However, I do believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic with the Apostles.
Greek was the language of commerce in the Roman Empire. It is the language the writers were lead to write the NT.
I suspect you are correct.
Wow. Of course it was God's will. But why, was the question.
Unless your argument is that it was God’s will to preserve the mss in Aramaic and His will was thwarted by someone or something, there is no possible doubt on the point.
I've never made that argument.
If you concede that A, God directly and actively chose Greek for His NT revelation, and B, the God-breathed words of Scripture are inerrant, then the entire Aramaic discussion is an u justifiable waste of time. We have the divinely inspired words of Scripture in the exact form that God willed for us to have them in.
u justifiable = unjustifiable
Re the why: Greek is more precise than Aramaic. It is the perfect language in which to communicate with maximum clarity and minimal ambiguity.
Is that your opinion or are you telling me the Holy Spirit's logic on the the matter?
It is an acknowledged fact. It can be illustrated in 100s if not thousands of ways. For example, you see it at present in the distinction between the words, ‘petros,’ and ‘petra.’ The distinction is real and vital to the interpretation of the text. Rather than working so hard to erase the clear and acknowledged distinction between these two words, you should thank the Holy Spirit for communicating this passage in Greek. By doing so He made it crystal clear. Had He chosen Aramaic instead, the interpretation would be unclear and ambiguous.
Just because you disagree with something does not make it an opinion. Were you to dig into the differences between Greek and Aramaic, you could discover the facts and the truth for yourself.
*most likely* and *agreed by most historians* are not facts and therefore does not constitute proof.
It is an opinion, the thing you keep blowing off.
At least when it doesn’t agree with yours.
Please don't project.
It’s only accepted by SOME prot churches
That was my point. I have no idea which of the 30,000 denominations anyone belongs to, so I have no idea what your beliefs are, so it’s hard to have a discussion.
That said, there are somewhere around 400,000 priests, so I’m sure some are homosexual. You have no idea how many are, so don’t tell me they are filled, from the top down. I don’t know and neither do you.
There is a difference between having homo marriages, and visible lesbian ministers who are practicing homosexuals and having some priests who don’t follow the Church’s teaching. If you don’t see that, I can’t help you. Probably can’t help you anyway, cause I have no reason to discuss anything with you, so I’m not going to. Have fun.
So the cocaine fueled homosexual orgies at the Vatican don’t constitute the top of the Catholic church?
A quick perusal of threads posted just here on FR give a pretty bleak picture of the state of Catholicism. You’re going to have a rough time denying much of what you no doubt wish you could by going through the Religion Forum postings.
And if you continue to swallow the 30,000 Prot denominations nonsense that has been addressed and shown to be invalid numerous times here on FR and regurgitate if as if it were fact, then the accuracy of anything else you claim is certainly suspect.
Nor is denominational affiliation or statements of faith any measure of what a person personally believes. And that is evidence among Catholics where there is 1.2 billion different interpretaions of Catholicism.
Roman Catholics continue to embarrass themselves in repeating this debunked claim.
How many Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 Roman Catholics are on these threads?
How many Roman Catholics are completely ignoring their own denomination's teachings in Unam Sanctam?
Further, as we've been told, there is no personal interpretation of Scripture so anything a Roman Catholic posts is just that...their opinion.
Until Rome issues an official position on each and every verse in the OT and NT, the Roman Catholic is left adrift in how to properly understand Scripture.
Nobody has made any secret of what they believe here so you cannot validly claim that you don’t know.
Salvation by grace through faith in Christ according to Scripture.
Don’t need works, baptism, communion, sacraments, rituals, rules, regulations, penance, purgatory, or any such added thing.
God saves a person as an act of mercy when they turn to Christ for salvation.
Just like the tax collector in Luke 18.
As I was pondering this last night, it occurred to me that the entire New Testament gospels were written decades AFTER the actual events took place and, as Jesus promised, the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all the things He had taught them (John 14:26). The accounts of Jesus' life and teachings even included things that the writers were not present to witness, the thoughts of the people, as well as those things Jesus said in private (i.e., His discussion with the devil after His fasting in the wilderness, Jesus' pleadings to the Father, etc.). The Holy Spirit CHOSE to reveal these things to the NT writers and their recordings of such IN Greek - it was the language spoken commonly at that time and place.
This goes to prove that what Jesus taught - even if at the time was in Aramaic/Hebrew - was preserved in Greek. Of that there is really no salient dispute.
I don't see where you have even started talking with anyone here. I don't think OPEN RF threads are your cuppa tea.
There is a lot of discussion on the interpretation of one word, but the overall message of Jesus Christ is missed.
Repeated over and over, Christ named Peter to build His Church (His ONE Holy CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC) and with the Apostles and their successors.
Peter and the Apostles started the process which continues until today.
Yes the Catholic Church has had to deal with sinners, heresies and all kinds of misfortune. Yes all are welcome, but we must follow that narrow road that leads to the gate where Jesus collects His sheep.
For some reason Roman Catholics seem to dismiss the calling of Paul...independent of the calling of Peter...though both called of God.
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.