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)
so why did Mary have to be sinless according to Catholics?
Is your Jesus so weak that he'd be contaminated with sin by mere contact with a sinful human being?
And no other person anywhere in Scripture is ever referred to a rock. That is only reserved for God or Jesus, Catholic misinterpretation of that renaming Simon as peter, notwithstanding. That verse alone does not prove that a pebble is the same as bedrock.
The irony of your posts coming from one of the biggest rejecters of Francis as pope this site has ever seen.
Who was the last legitimate pope, ebb?
According you your own personal interpretation of Catholicism.
You know? I am in the mood to not let this slide. First, the silly mind blowingly wrong statement: “It’s ludicrous to claim that Jesus would build HIS church upon a sinful flawed individual.”
The entire Bible is God using flawd, sinful people to do his will. (I’ll point them out if you can’t find them. There is no unflawed and sinless people’)
Now, if you actually read the FULL CHAPTER OF MATTHEW 16, you see Christ founding HIS Church on earth and appointing Peter to be the first among other apostles. (Just so you know the pope is actually the Bishop of Rome, just like the other bishops across the world. But I digress.)
Back to Matthew Chapter 16: 13-20. Here it is in full:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”
Christ CLEARLY gives Peter and the apostles the authority to represent HIM on earth in HIS name. The Catholic Church isn’t founded on Peter but Christ. In 2,000+ years we’ve known that and never claimed otherwise. You’ll find if you stop cutting and pasting snippets and read it seamlessly and in full, there is no option but to become Catholic and follow Christ as HE intended it should be.
Pretending that via some linguistic pretzel logic that Christ goes to all the trouble to state that Peter’s declaration is inspired by God the Father, and proceed to give him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. And give him the powers to bind and loose, which are guaranteed by heaven,.....and then deny that Christ was referring to Peter, regarding building His church on him, is just pitiful.
If you are Catholic, you have the supposed spiritual descendant of St. Peter surrendering that Church to Mohammedan savages!
Do something! 
So, what’s the explanation for why the feminine form of rock was used to reference Christ/Jesus?
Chuck,
I have been a Freeper well over twenty five years. I’m sorry you feel as strongly against the church that brought you to faith in The Lord Jesus as you do. I know many good Catholics who know that Jesus is The Lord, The great Jehovah of the Old Testament and the literal Son of God in the flesh. They may have a few facts wrong but they are trying their best and will know Christ The Lord when they meet Him, more importantly Christ will know them and welcome them home.
It is plain as day to anyone that reads the Bible that the Rock is Jesus. Peter’s acknowledgment of who Christ really is, is the Rock. Not Peter.
This dogma is what Catholics use to try to elevate themselves above the rest as “the one true church”. I don’t have a problem with Catholics until they try elevating Church teaching above the Bible.
To me and you, but too many are raised to repeat what the preacher says instead of reading what the Scripture say
The Hebrew word "elowahh" אֱלוֹהַּ (god, little "g") is used where you have inserted "rock."
Is there some other Hebrew text that you are using or am I confusing the issue somehow?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The term used for Peter means “little rock”, or “pebble”. Peter knows who Jesus is through The Father, and that revelation is what He will build his Church on - not the man Peter.
Why do you even ask?
You reject all popes, just as you have your Catholic faith.
I will get back to you on that
I have to leave fir now but I will respond to it later
No rush. It’s not an important issue. Just a tiny detail that I noticed.
He was referring to all believers, not just Peter.
Why? It's been a heck of a party...we used to have some real knock-down dragouts. :D
I learned a lot from those discussions. I miss some of the commentators from the old days. On both sides.
Peter was NOT a pope. He was not even the Bishop of Rome.
I’m just thankful for a good old fashioned Catholic-Protestant discussion to give us a break from the Ukraine-Russian thread battles.
“He was ONE of the apostles and preached the gospel like the rest of them did.”
Galatians 2: 11 - 14
11 But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Paul obviously did not think Peter pulled rank over him.
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.