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.
Nope. Looking at other references, Kefa is Kepha, which is translated to "a stone", or "petros" in Beloved John's Greek handwriting. But in other Greek co-equal passages of Scripture, "petra" is either "tsoor" (Aramaic) or "selah" (the Hebrew equivalent of 'tsoor') but never, ever "kefa" (Aramaic) or "Cephas" (the English transliteration of "Kayphas" the Greek word).
The two words are distinct, not because they coincidentally are inflected with a particular gender, but because precisely Kefa and Petros refer to the size of the rock fragment (which could be, say, the size of a small boulder to perhaps the size of an ashlar, a temple-sized building stone); whereas because it is of the feminine gender, "petra" spectifically refers to a mass of rock equivalent to a mile-long escarpment, or a whole mountain, all one piece, and immovable except by, say, a volcanic eruption, for which in the Hebrew the word "selah", a noun of masculine gender would be the same thing; and its equivalent in Aramaic would be "tsoor," also coincidentally masculine in gender, never "kefa" a separated piece of granite or dolomite or some such stony material.
Hope you're getting this, from the linguistics point of view. I belivee your statement above is dead wrong.
Nope. Looking at other references, Kefa is Kepha,
Jesus said you are Cephas and said for the others to hear: upon this Cephas i will build my Church:,
metmon wrote
The Holy Spirit made a mistake when He chose those two words (petra and petros)to use, and determined that NT Scripture be preserved in Greek?
You just assume that the holy spirit had anything to do with it but it was written in Greek because that was the langiage of the day.
But the point is that our king James bible uses the word Rock that is R.O.C.K
You people coming up with your silly little excuses of why Peter can`t be the rock is so childish.
There are some good reasons to resist the Catholic Church but trying to put Peter down to the extent of even calling Jesus a liar is not going to get you any medals.
You’ve only 200 more replies to read through.
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Yes it is stone in Greek but it is rock in Aramaic, Jesus spoke Aramaic and he meant what he said in Aramaic.
So argue all you want about if Peter was the rock or not but please don`t try to pull the wool over some ones eyes with your references that don`t mean squat.
You doctors of religion you.
‘You just assume that the holy spirit had anything to do with it but it was written in Greek because that was the langiage of the day.’
No one is assuming. The Bible says so. You’re not calling the Bible lies, surely.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Outside of the Roman Catholic Church, Christendom does not view Peter as the first of a succession of popes. At best, the bishop of Rome was “first among equals” at the ecumenical councils.
Nope.
The holy apostles wrote to visible named churches that were part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church that the Messiah built upon them with the Messiah Himself as the chief cornerstone. Those churches had candlesticks in heaven. Those churches had the holy apostles.
But NONE of the others can??
It that what you have implied here?
'Tis the ONLY way to avoid man's bias.
Yes; they are; and they are in the form of an easily answered question.
They persist in calling me a liar by manufacturing a motive you want others to read from my posts.
I'm interested in what MOTIVE I've ascribed to you.
Actually, it's your methodology that perplexes others. But not me.
Have these 'others' contacted you and expressed their frustration with me?
Why haven't they contacted me? Am I the one who is arguing over words?
oh?
I thought that the posting of Catholic Early Church Fathers on the matter would have at least SOME kind of an effect on FR Catholics.
I guess I assumed wrongly...
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
An FR Catholic who states that the 7 churches in Revelation WERE Catholic!!
The assignment of the churches was to be lampstands on the earth, according to The Risen Jesus, Messiah and Master, who commanded John Theologian to write warning letters to the principal president/elder--the "angel"/messenger/teacher of Christ's commands--of each of the seven enumerated churches. Moreover, these letters were to be circulated throughout the churches, seen by their congregations.
Heaven needs no such light-bearers, because in Heaven the Lamb is the Light-source. It is the depraved, lost, darkened world of sin practitioners that needs to be enlightened by properly functioning independent, autonomous, Bible-believing local assemblies, none of whose pastors have left their first, last, and only love.
The Bible warns that if the chief teacher of a local church continued to lead the assembled constituents into apostasy, the light was to be (and has for those seven churches of Asia Minor) extinguished.
It is the denominational churches who today have succumbed to Satan's blandishments across the globe, whose leaders have not listened to The Holy Ghost, and who have failed to bring their churches into obedient compliance with the Holy Ghost, to whom each was builded as a temple for Him. These have failed to cling to the Christ of the Cross. The churches and their false professors will be left behind, in entirety. The outrageously grotesque many-branched raven-infested Roman episcopacy is only one of them. The reformed Russian/Ukranian/Eastern Orthodoxen are others.
If you want to see where the lamps are brightly shining, go to the local fundamental independent Bible church gatherings found everywhere you look, more than 30,000 of them, all holding a common faith, and are ministering the great task of finding sin-sick lost worldlings, proclaiming the Gospel of rebirth through God's gracious gift of salvation to the repentant believing heart; then recruiting, inducting, and training disciples to overcome the Wicked One; and to partake of the abundant absolute life in the Christ of Calvary.
My FRiend, you make it perfectly clear that you do not perceive what the Bible says about itself and its Author, even while you claim that your plan is the one that leads to the Cross.
I cannot express to you how sad it is to have to see you continue down that path.
That's not the issue. Using a poor text gives a poor translation(s).
It that what you have implied here?
What I have said outright, not implied is:
>> It's the finer points of whether a version can be trusted throughout that causes comparisons to come to one's attention. <<
The implication is that one should not be using an untrustworthy text or translation to impart doctrine.
What the adherents of the critical text maintain is that God was not able to preserve His Written Word and make it available to His churches throughout this Age, and that they through scholarship have provided something better, and that translations from it are better.
I disbelieve that, and disagree with that position.
That is the ideal. I am quite sure that in Heaven those will be the common languages that everyone will be learning. But it's not the only way. For the meantime, we depend on people trained in the text languages to remedy contentions on doctrinal matters, through the method of expository teaching. Even Paul, speaking Greek to a Hellenized population, had to explain what the Jewish Scriptures meant, to Jews and Greek=speakers.
'Tis the ONLY way to avoid man's bias.
Is it? I think you're neglecting prayer and spiritual discernment, as well as having the Bible explain itself.
The form of the question is of the type. "Does your mother know you make faces at her when her back is turned?" expecting a "yes" or "no" answer. My answer is that you are asking the wrong question and in the wrong way that imputes a motive, which you deny. Use a different kind of objective interrogation if you want a response.
Have these 'others' contacted you and expressed their frustration with me?
You are the one that mentioned "others"; and yes, I've seen people call you out for your methodology of coming at someone sideways. I just usually am not the object of it. I dislike the method, because it is a technique that is distracting and tends to personalize things in which you try to make your object look like a fool, if he/she bites and goes on the defensive. Here we are. The situation has been personalized, and you have evaded answering to my authorities, the Bible texts and an excellent, honored translation of them.
Am I the one who is arguing over words?
If you don't want to split linguistics and meanings, don't. But drawing out the meaning of a Scriptural passage at least illuminates it, and usually offers a solution to an argument. But I do not know why you asked this question at this point other than to suggest some kind of deficiency in the methods or character of the target of your question, which can be otherwise taken as rhetorical.
Really?
Where have you been man?
Do you really think it would work in light of the discussion that's been going on in this thread?
We've been giving them the Greek for years now and they are STILL denying it.
And here it is again........
Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm
Heck, they don't even think Scripture is God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired. Just a bunch of their church guys wrote it in the language of the day cause it was convenient, or something. Don't forget, we keep getting reminded to thank the Catholic church for the Bible.
How many years did that take?
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.