Posted on 01/08/2024 1:18:20 PM PST by OneVike
Until now I have not shared my opinion of what I think of the many inherent ways the Catholic Church has misinterpreted Scripture throughout the years. I can no longer be silent on the subject, because it is one that the Catholic Church has used to teach heresy.
To begin with, the Catholic Church has been making a mockery of Scripture for many years. There are many beliefs the Catholic Church holds that I have problems with, but for now I will explain why they are wrong in their interpretation that Peter is the rock upon which Christ has built His church.
Jesus is the ONLY foundation which His church can and is built upon. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and we need to keep our eyes on him, not some man chosen by flawed men. We need not pay attention to what color of smoke is billowing from a building built by flawed men to learn who the voice of God will be, because we already know. We are to look to no one else as the foundation or the hope on which the church is built, but Jesus, The Son of God.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
When Peter answered Jesus by stating,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,”
(Matthew 16:16)
Jesus answered and said to him,
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:17-18)
To begin with, when you look at the original wording of Matthew, it was written in Koinonia Greek, which was the language of the common man in the day of Christ. Koinonia Greek was what today’s modern American English is to everyone from America to Korea, the universal language spoken around the world. So when you look at the original language Matthew was written in you will see something that is not readily apparent. When Jesus said,
“…you are Peter [(πΠέτρος) (petros)] and upon this
Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] I will build My church…”
(Matthew 18a)
Greek nouns have genders, which is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word, “petros”, is masculine; “petra” is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as, “Petros.” But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine, “petros”, rather the feminine, “petra.”
A good example of this would be Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, where he refers to Jesus as the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert;
“and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were
drinking from a spiritual rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petras)] which
followed them; and the Rock [(πέτρᾳ) (petra)] was Christ.”
(1Corinthians 10:4)
It must be pointed out that in Peter’s 1st letter, he refers to Jesus as the “Rock”,
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will
by no means be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28:16)
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,” (Psalms 118:22)
“A stone of stumbling”
And
“a Rock of offense.” (Isaiah 8:14)
(1Peter 2:7-8)
So the word translated in this passage is not the same word as Peter, and nothing can be more wrong than to suppose Jesus meant Peter the person. It’s ludicrous to claim that Jesus would build HIS church upon a sinful flawed individual. HE emphatically stated HE would build it upon the “truth” of which Peter recognized. That truth being, “Jesus is The Christ, The Son of The Living God!” Something we know Peter himself understood by reading his first epistle, as I pointed out above.
Thus if Peter himself used the word, “petra” to refer to Jesus, then shouldn’t we? We can also see where Paul referred to Jesus as the rock, “petra”.
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense,
and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
(Romans 9:33)
We also see the word, "Rock," used throughout the Old Testament to refer to GOD.
“The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just;
a God of faithfulness and without injustice.”
(Deuteronomy 32:4)
“The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
My God, my Rock, in whom I take refuge.”
(2 Samuel 22:2-3)
“And who is a Rock, except our God.”
(Psalms 18:31)
“Is there any God besides Me, or
is there any other Rock? I know of none.”
(Isaiah 44:8)
Finally, I challenge anyone to prove to me that, at any time in the Scriptures, GOD ever referred to any man as a rock. However, throughout Scriptures we are told about the perfection of the Rock which is Christ, not a sinful man named Peter. So why would Jesus build His church upon an unstable human who needs to be saved? He wouldn't, and He didn't. It should be obvious from the Word of God that the Rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the
one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,”
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
No catholics have accused me of catholic-bashing.
Only ex-Catholics and other protestants have accused me of doing so.
Ever wondered why, metmom?
And assumption, plain and simple.
NOBODY can know exactly what words Jesus used in that interaction.
Basing your interpretation of it based on suppositions and hypotheticals is a sure fire recipe for error and deception.
Peter's profession of faith was not made in the name of the other Apostles.
Otherwise, Christ would not have introduced the subject by distinguishing him by his name Simon son of Johah.
Because you hide your posts behind [Catholic Caucus]
Not sure what Scripture says about that. But it could be a reference to Simon Peter’s obstinacy. He was hard-headed. And impulsive. But only God knows the reason (unless you can show us from Scripture).
We Christians are the church.
I’m not hiding.
I just choose to keep rabid anti-Catholics off of them.
You are correct. Jesus called Simon “petros”, a pebble. He called Himself “petra”, on which the church was built.
Scripture tells us what words Jesus used. John 1:42: "You are Simon the son of John, you will be called Cephas, which means* Peter"
* "Means"/"is translated"/"is interpreted"...however you want to translate ἑρμηνεύεται.
Show me where Catholics have accused me of Catholic-bashing, whether on open or caucused threads.
Here are some questions concerning the Greek:
Does Jesus anywhere refer to Simon prior to this as Πέτρος?
ταυτᾳ is a demonstrative adjective, you seem to be suggesting that Jesus is using it reflexively. I have not encountered that usage.
LSJ points out that πέτρος can be either masculine or feminine. It also points out some sublte and interesting usage differences between πέτρος and πέτρα. e.g. In Homer πέτρος, as opposed to λίθος, is used to indicate a stone that is used as a weapon in battle.
As in most any languages, pronouns are tricky to translate. ἐπί in the dative has a large range of meaning in addition to “on” or “upon.” It can mean: in, at, near, over, in honor of, againt, besides, for, after, etc.
Even so, unless Jesus was using the demonstrative in pointing out a particular rock in a particular place, the phrase is metaphorical so that makes the use of ἐπί less certain.
The following verse concering the keys indicates Jesus is making some connection between the church that is to be built and Simon. The preceding verses however pointed out that his followers have a difficult time understanding him. I’m sure that observation is true of both Matthew and those of us who read Matthes.
That being said, I should spend more time reading the Gospels in the original Greek.
After the Jewish infrastructure was totally destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, what happened?
It took a few years, but other earthly organizations (formed by and headed up by men) rose up to claim God’s authority to announce what God required.
But the Church of Jesus Christ is a living organism; a collection of all believers in Jesus Christ. IOW, it is composed of the saved ones. It is not a club, or society, or a corporation. And it is not subject to the dictates of men in robes (be it black robes, or red robes, or white robes).
As we used to say, “You can’t put God in a box.” And before you accuse me of doing that, reflect on how that is essentially what the Catholic Church (and, perhaps, some others) have done.
😂
A born and raised Catholic here. I have been to service in many Christian denomination churches. Everything from Methodist to Episcopalian to Lutheran to Mennonite to Seventh Day Adventists. They all have their idiosyncrasies, but each of these religions all have one bedrock: Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. Old school Catholics believe that not attending mass is a mortal sin. I quit that belief a long time ago. Just like not eating meat on Fridays during Lent. Where is that in the scriptures? The end for me was the number of pedophile priests who kept being transferred to other parishes to perpetrate their sins there as well. And the church hierarchy knew about it and did nothing. Off my soapbox now.
Also, Jerome, who is the one who did a very early translation of much of the Bible (or the New Testament only?) into Latin was not a very capable linguist. He did a very poor job of it; maybe influenced by his own theology.
However, there are far better translations of the original writings.
So if the Catholics are going to claim credit for the translation via Jerome’s work they also need to own the fact that it is extremely deficient.
(Maybe the Catholics will try to claim Jerome’s translation is inspired and therefore it trumps the original writings. That would be the type of thing one could expect from them.)
Good food for thought ALPAPilot.
None of us (presumably) are native in NT Greek. But there were Christian writers in the first centuries A.D. who certainly were. So why not see what they have to say about this passage?
You are most welcome.
OV = Chuck Ness :)
Why is Jerome’s Vulgate relevant here? Did someone bring it up?
As far as I’ve seen, we on the Catholic side of this debate have been citing the Greek NT.
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.