- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,942
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Peter the Rock?
- Thread starter Marymog
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Who, is an obvious answer. Jesus the Christ.
The actual church has already been addressed .
I'm a Christian.
Is it that you want to impugne my understandings of the Bible by associating them with a denomination and then attack that denomination? Is that the plan?
If you want to discuss the Scriptures, then do that. If you don't, I'm not really interested. All this other personal stuff does not interest me.
Much love!
No...not exactly with protestants.
It started with Queen Elizabeth when she allowed the proliferation of the Geneva Bible and in Germany with the publication of the Gutenberg Bible.
But basically the individual person could and would determine what the translated scriptures meant themselves. The Reformation and Renaissance were reflective of individual understanding of the scriptures without the Catholic Church intervening in who could and could not learn to read and write.
As a result many different interpretation camps became popular. (Usually along regional lines) AKA the many denominations that exist today. Bloody Queen Mary doing nothing to help the situation. (Before Elizabeth)
Most of the scriptures were written by commen men and for common men to understand. Where yes, 99% of people lean upon exegetical commentaries I threw them out decades ago for expositions commentaries that just explain the language. Then I use the location and anthropology and audience as well as consider time and the writer of the section I'm reading of the Bible.
I truly have no denominational bent whatsoever...not even a Non-denominational bent to my theologies. I'm a product of thorough independant study.
Where my conclusions are usually fairly basic and simplistic and things anyone could obviously see....it's because I'm not that smart...at least I like to fancy myself as such. But with even a rudimentary look at the location and the elements of what Jesus says its very obvious exactly what the "Rock" is that Jesus will build his church upon. One I don't think that you will entertain. But I'm also wrong alot too...perhaps I'm really bad at predicting the future.
Maybe I'm just jaded...because when Jesus so blatantly and obviously demonstrated the absolute truth to the religious elite they refused to see it....and if He couldn't convince them then who am I to think i could do better?
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
What if....
God and Jesus knew ahead of time that men being their normal sinful selves would horde the knowledge of Christ and keep it from humanity so God had the New Testament written in such a way that the common man could understand it with a bit of study.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
There are a few things we’re gonna get to, like whether this was even originally Greek or not, but Protestants tend to say “Oh, this is a wordplay, and so it’s not clear…if Peter’s petros, who’s petra? And so Robinson says, “Well, maybe Jesus could mean himself by ‘this rock’ if he pointed to himself.”
And the first thing I’d say to that is: anytime you have to add the critical detail “if he pointed to himself,” you know you’re doing bad exegesis. Like, you could also say if he pointed to, like, a particular rock and said “This is where we’re gonna build,” then yeah, that would be a pretty important detail. But it rejects something about the authority of Scripture to say “The critical information to understand what was meant is something that we don’t even have access to.” Like, you know, “Jesus wants us to understand this passage, but we couldn’t possibly understand it because he didn’t give us the tools to, so we have to just imagine where he might have been pointing.” That’s really bad exegesis.
But there’s another reason, too. So this is actually from a Presbyterian minister by the name of Marvin Richardson Vincent, who says this reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural if you look at the passage. Here’s how it goes: they go up to Caesarea Philippi, which is far, far away from where they’ve been doing ministry for the entire rest of all of the Gospels. And so Jesus takes them, basically, on a retreat far away from everything else. And while he’s there he says to them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” and then he says, “Who do you say that I am?”
And one of them, Simon Peter, inspired by God, says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” So Peter, Simon Peter, confesses Jesus as the Christ. In turn, Jesus says, “[Simon,] you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…the gates of Hell will not prevail…[and] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
So in other words, these things happen in this order: first of all, Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ; then Jesus confesses Simon as Peter; then he says that he’s going to build the church on the rock [petra], and then he personalizes it even more by giving the binding and loosing authority specifically to Peter, and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
So all of that is very explicitly to Peter. The idea that halfway in the middle of that he suddenly switches from talking to Peter to talking about himself, without any clear signal that he’s switching the target of the blessing—like, the form of this is a form of a blessing, and Peter’s a recipient of the blessing. The Protestant explanation that says “the rock is Jesus” turns it from Jesus blessing Peter to him switching blessing himself, or some third-party unnamed we-don’t-even-know-what-the-rock-is, and then going back to Peter. So when Marvin Richardson Vincent says this is forced and an unnatural exegesis, it’s true.
And the first thing I’d say to that is: anytime you have to add the critical detail “if he pointed to himself,” you know you’re doing bad exegesis. Like, you could also say if he pointed to, like, a particular rock and said “This is where we’re gonna build,” then yeah, that would be a pretty important detail. But it rejects something about the authority of Scripture to say “The critical information to understand what was meant is something that we don’t even have access to.” Like, you know, “Jesus wants us to understand this passage, but we couldn’t possibly understand it because he didn’t give us the tools to, so we have to just imagine where he might have been pointing.” That’s really bad exegesis.
But there’s another reason, too. So this is actually from a Presbyterian minister by the name of Marvin Richardson Vincent, who says this reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural if you look at the passage. Here’s how it goes: they go up to Caesarea Philippi, which is far, far away from where they’ve been doing ministry for the entire rest of all of the Gospels. And so Jesus takes them, basically, on a retreat far away from everything else. And while he’s there he says to them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” and then he says, “Who do you say that I am?”
And one of them, Simon Peter, inspired by God, says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” So Peter, Simon Peter, confesses Jesus as the Christ. In turn, Jesus says, “[Simon,] you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…the gates of Hell will not prevail…[and] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
So in other words, these things happen in this order: first of all, Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ; then Jesus confesses Simon as Peter; then he says that he’s going to build the church on the rock [petra], and then he personalizes it even more by giving the binding and loosing authority specifically to Peter, and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
So all of that is very explicitly to Peter. The idea that halfway in the middle of that he suddenly switches from talking to Peter to talking about himself, without any clear signal that he’s switching the target of the blessing—like, the form of this is a form of a blessing, and Peter’s a recipient of the blessing. The Protestant explanation that says “the rock is Jesus” turns it from Jesus blessing Peter to him switching blessing himself, or some third-party unnamed we-don’t-even-know-what-the-rock-is, and then going back to Peter. So when Marvin Richardson Vincent says this is forced and an unnatural exegesis, it’s true.
God gave us His Book to communicate with us, and communicate He does. And one of the obvious earmarks of false teaching is some lengthy explanation for why you shouldn't just accept the words written.
I have to ask some people . . . How is it you can read and understand my post?? It's because it's words, and words have meanings, and so we can read and know what is being said.
Much love!
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I haven't read this whole thread, so I'll just answer the question of what is the ROCK. Peter's statement is the Rock or Foundation of the Church.
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
What I say here, I did not learn from men, nor have I spoken what is my own. The history of which began with Peter who did not come by the knowledge of who Christ was by "flesh and blood...but My Father who is in heaven."
It is the "same level as Abraham and Jacob", that Jesus has done for all who enter "in Him." Indeed, He "gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers", etc., and even as Paul said, "for me, to live is Christ." But there is no other "level" not even for the Son of man, except they be raised up "in Him." Which is to say...all men are of one level, and all who are raised up are of the same level as Christ, who was and is One and God.
As for Isaiah 22-21-21...the word was not regarding Peter, but "Eliakim the son of Hilkiah"--the Son of God.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Within 60 years after Luther's nail job, there were 200 different interpretations of "This is my body", each one claiming to accept the words written.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Amen .
English Bible History
English Bible HistoryThe fascinating story of how we got the Bible in its present form actually starts thousands of years ago, as briefly outlined in our Timeline of Bible Translation History. The History of The English Bible & The History of The Christian Church Meet In The Protestant...
greatsite.com
Mosheli
Member
When we read the Matthew 16 verses in the original Greek here Matthew 16 Interlinear Bible we see that Peter is Petros but the rock the church is built on is Petra, so I can't see that Peter is the rock the church is built on.
There is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was bishop of the church at Rome, nor is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence outside of later Roman church writings.
The only possible biblical evidence is where Peter passes on a greeting from "Babylon" (which may have been a code name for Rome), but the verses don't say he was at "Babylon" just that he was passing on a greeting from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13). Another bible verse says he will be brought where he does not desire (John 21:18), but again this doesn't actually say Rome.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:
1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
50 New Testament Proofs For Peter's Primacy & The Papacy
The papacy is derived from Peter's primacy among the apostles. It's essential components are revealed in the apostolic leadership of St. Peter.
www.patheos.com
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
This is another resource that may be of use:The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:
1. Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who “builds.” The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).
50 New Testament Proofs For Peter's Primacy & The Papacy
The papacy is derived from Peter's primacy among the apostles. It's essential components are revealed in the apostolic leadership of St. Peter.
Primacy of Peter
The papacy, or the office of Pope, derives directly from the primacy of Saint Peter among the Apostles and the leadership for which Christ designated him when he established his Church.
The authority given by Christ to Saint Peter and to his successors, the Popes, is called the Primacy of Peter.
Christ gave authority to Peter's successors? That's news to me!
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,942
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thanks Mosheli.
It is true that Scripture does not flat out say that Peter was in Rome. I don't know what you mean by "nor is there any extra-Biblical historical evidence outside of later Roman church writings". The earliest writings we have are from Ignatius who strongly suggest Peter/Paul was in Rome in his letter to Letter to the Romans (110AD) “I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did."
90 years later Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s” The implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there with Paul.
Combining the Scriptural code name for Rome (60-65AD), Ignatius letter (110AD) and Tertullian's letter (200AD) the first 170 years of Christianity's writings STRONGLY suggest Peter was in Rome.
Yes...and I agree...but we are now roughly 2,000 years after the writing and in a culture that is very different from Ancient Near Eastern Cultures....so not just translation is needed but a study of anthropology, topography, history, and etc is also needed.
Women have "rights" these days...there really is no institutional slavery or accepted consorts or polygamy. Patriarchy is also not as common or arranged marriages.
What I'm referring to is the process called Hermeneutics. The blending of writing arts and the sciences to determine what was said, why was it said, and in what manner it was said in.
Flat reading is important and not to be dismissed...but to ignore everything surrounding the text is also not to be missed. Otherwise huge, highly important principles are going to go ignored or missed. (Such as what I've been explaining about this story)
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,942
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Thanks 1stcenturylady,
That changes Jesus statement to, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on your statement that I AM the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Taking the conversation between Peter and Jesus into context how does, And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" work into that statement? It doesn't seem to fit or make sense.
Mary
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,942
- 1,795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Lol Soooooo No...not exactly with protestants but with Catholics it DOES?
Interesting....Even though some Protestant teachings mirror Catholic teachings and Protestants have various teachings of the same passage....The Protestant teaching is always right!
- Status
Similar threads
