Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Where is scripture given the authority of self determination? or self 'defining'? I sure am missing a bunch of verses. 'T' how can a book have authority, what's it going to do to correct you when you're wrong, close on your finger?

JoeT

---

LOL... hey I can't help it if the BIBLE defines itself. I certainly didn't write it, I'm not that smart. :p The Bible is the word of God, HE said it... not me. That is the only authority I have. I may not be Einstein, (although lately you couldn't tell my looking at my HAIR) but I CAN read and the written word defines itself. Who ELSE is called the ROCK? I AM that I AM? The chief cornerSTONE? Sorry... I didn't make it up... I just read it and with the help of the Holy Spirit I am given some understanding .

Don't make me come through this computer and smack you. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

What you want to debate was my OPINION. and you are welcome to do that because it is only MY thoughts. BUT.....

I gave you biblical reasons as to why I believe this stone or rock is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is a self defining book. Rock and Stone....is MY savior not the church.

Honestly, it isn't about being a dispensationalist. I'm NOT trying to make my views FIT a pretrib rapture. No scripture is of a private interpretaion, therefore it must be compared with other scripture. Sorry Dave, Jesus IS the ROCK.

---

Agreed. But Jesus also lives in us, and is reaching the world through us. That was my point. The leaven parable shows it most effectively, at least for me, and when we take the Daniel vision in conjunction with the parables and Jesus' other descriptions of his kingdom, it starts to come together and we get a picture of the gradual growth of the kingdom, culminating in Jesus' return. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

LOL ...hey I can't help it if the BIBLE defines itself. I certainly didn't write it, I'm not that smart. :p The Bible is the word of God, HE said it...not me. That is the only authority i have. I may not be Einstein, (although lately you couldn't tell my looking at my HAIR) but i CAN read and the written word defines itself. Who ELSE is called the ROCK? I AM that I AM? the chief cornerSTONE? sorry...i didn't make it up...i just read it and with the help of the Holy Spirit I am given some understanding .


Don't make me come thru this computer and smack ya. :D

---

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It was on Skype. Sorry you missed it.

(Just think -- if only they had had cell phones and computers and Skype back then.)

---

DARN! I'm never on Skype when HE is... I miss everything. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

---

That's what she said -- the Rock is Jesus. He's alive and in our hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

JoeT

---

Oooooooh... fighten me on this huh? I'm going to take you down. LoL... the Bible isn't just a BOOK. It is the word of GOD. Ever read any mere BOOK that could do this:

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Jesus is... ( according to the Bible in the gospel of John) the Word... I do not worship the Bible... I worship the Word that was made flesh. I believe the Bible is everything God has to say to mankind. Therefore it is my ONLY authority.

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Fred,
I was quoting scripture from Isaiah and psalms that says states the Lord is the rock and the chief cornerstone. I wasn't talking about Peter at all. Trying to prove the Bible defines who the uncut stone really is in Daniel.

AND... I agree. The church isn't going to crush anything... nor bring the antichrist to his knees. We are too divided. We can't do it now... let alone during the tribulation period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

The reality is, Fred, suggesting that Peter is the rock is taking what was said out of context and is certainly not a faithful translation. That rock you suggest Peter to be is described as a stumbling block almost immediately. Is that Church "founded by Peter" a stumbling block, Fred? You should try reading Scripture in context. Have you considered that the Keys to the Kingdom may not be physical but his teachings? Interesting you focused on a third of the population, that is the number that Scripture says will be saved, so much for those who aren't part of the RCC eh, they get in after all

To clarify, I never said the church would crush anything. The church is what grows like yeast in a lump of dough, but the finishing blow has to come from Jesus himself at his return. I thought I made that clear. If Jesus truly is the head of the church, there's no problem with the view.

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

As for the "keys to the kingdom" we can only speculate about what that meant. We do know that the passage about binding and losing has been grossly misunderstood by some; what it says is "whatever you bind on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven" etc. The verbs are future perfects. Basically, Peter by his actions will acknowledge things that God has already established and decreed. My own view is that this refers to the spreading of the gospel beyond the Jews to encompass us Gentiles as well, which Peter initiated with Cornelius in Acts 10. It certainly isn't a blanket statement setting Peter up as the head of the church, and it says nothing whatsoever about any kind of succession.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

---

Your reading would then be something like this -

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art a small stone, and upon this massive boulder of myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It just doesn't make sense - even in English. Immediately after acknowledging the supreme importance of the Father revealing to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (the first one to do so), Jesus calls Peter "a small stone" - huh? It doesn't follow.

Throw in all the arguments re language - Greek, poetic Greek, Aramaic (where the problem doesn't occur), Koine Greek - and the original reading by the Catholic Church holds up best.

(A few verses later, Jesus is calling Peter, Satan. But that probably is a later time.)

The passage clearly shows the primacy of Peter among the Apostles. Whether it can be extended to popes is another question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

And I say also unto thee, That thou art a small stone, and upon this massive boulder of myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/I]

It just doesn't make sense - even in English. Immediately after acknowledging the supreme importance of the Father revealing to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (the first one to do so), Jesus calls Peter "a small stone" - huh? It doesn't follow.

---

It makes perfect sense. If the Church isn't built on the massive boulder of the risen Christ... And Jesus was reminding Peter (the impulsive, even rash disciple) that he is merely a small stone in the foundation, whereas Jesus is the massive boulder, the cornerstone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It makes perfect sense. If the Church isn't built on the massive boulder of the risen Christ.... And Jesus was reminding Peter (the impulsive, even rash disciple) that he is merely a small stone in the foundation, whereas Jesus is the massive boulder, the cornerstone.

---

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning. The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning... I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

---

Oh, that is so true, isn't it!

Quote:

---

The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

---

Our Greek scholar (among many others) has (have? I need Rich!) said they are two different words with different meanings. Why would that be if Jesus hadn't meant He was referring to two different people? Why use two different words for rock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning. The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

---

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Oh, that is so true, isn't it!

Our Greek scholar (among many others) has (have? I need Rich!) said they are two different words with different meanings. Why would that be if Jesus hadn't meant He was referring to two different people? Why use two different words for rock?

---

There are very reasonable explanations for the language arguments/discrepancies. Google Matthew 16 and you will find them all - both Catholic and protestant. Too detailed to do them here.

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

Others say Matthew's Greek was the only legitimate way to understand the passage since that Greek was inspired by the Holy Spirit - even though it was not the language Jesus used. I don't give any weight to that kind of argument.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millennia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millenia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period of time.

---

And that's a valid argument? It's always been done that way, so it must be right? And let's interpret to fit the agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

---

I think we've reached a bit of an impasse on the Rock question, but I do want to address this, because it's erroneous.

Koine Greek was not a patois, it was the language of the common folks of the Roman Empire. "Koine" means "common" as opposed to the Attic of the philosophers and such. Let me give a somewhat embarrassing example.

I was talking with some people who were into the "prosperity" gospel. One verse they pointed at was 3 John 2, which out of context appears to say that one of the top apostles wants believers to prosper. I tried to explain the difference between genres that are prescriptive and those that are merely salutations. They stared at me like I had two heads. A week later, the pastor of our church stood up during his sermon and addressed that same question with the words "It's not a promise, it's a greeting." Same thing I said, except my answer was Attic (and hence way over the heads of regular people) and his was Koine.

Over the past 80 years or so we've come to realize that what used to be considered Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament was nothing of the kind; we've found letters, shopping lists, bills of lading, certificates freeing slaves, you name it, from here and there around the ancient Roman world, and they show that this was "plain" Greek, not some Greek-Aramaic patois.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

---

I don't know how you can be so "definitive" about it when scholars disagree with your position in good faith. See my reply to Wondergirl above re reading the different points of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

And that's a valid argument? It's always been done that way, so it must be right? And let's interpret to fit the agenda?

---

The argument, obviously, refers to the amount of study that has been put in over time - not that it's correct because "it's always been done that way".

As to agenda - are you saying Protestants have no agenda in this? Let's be honest - the Catholic Church is the big kid on the block - and is an easy target. Both sides have agendas. The trick is figuring out which one accords best with the facts. If dogma is left out (admittedly, not an easy thing to do), the meaning of the passage becomes clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

If dogma is left out (admittedly, not an easy thing to do), the meaning of the passage becomes clear.

---

I see you've totally ignored your dogma and left it out. That was so easy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Koine Greek was not a patois

Over the past 80 years or so we've come to realize that what used to be considered Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament was nothing of the kind; we've found letters, shopping lists, bills of lading, certificates freeing slaves, you name it, from here and there around the ancient Roman world, and they show that this was "plain" Greek, not some Greek-Aramaic patois.

---

Thank you. "Patois" was a hasty choice of words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

There are very reasonable explanations for the language arguments/discrepancies. Google Matthew 16 and you will find them all - both Catholic and protestant. Too detailed to do them here.

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

Others say Matthew's Greek was the only legitimate way to understand the passage since that Greek was inspired by the Holy Spirit - even though it was not the language Jesus used. I don't give any weight to that kind of argument.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millenia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period of time.

---

Wow! There must be plenty of other things we Protestants are screwing up in translation and interpretation. I'll have to let everyone know and call a high-level meeting about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I see you've totally ignored your dogma and left it out. That was so easy too.

---

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be implying I have a "dogma".

Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no dogma - no agenda - no ax to grind. My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

---

So if we agree about the rock-Rock thing being Peter because of faulty translation and not knowing what Jesus REALLY said, what else are we wrong about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Wow! There must be plenty of other things we Protestants are screwing up in translation and interpretation. I'll have to let everyone know and call a high-level meeting about this.

---

Your sarcasm is noted, and I'm at a loss to understand why you feel you must be sarcastic.

There is not a scintilla of doubt that Protestants, those of the fundamentalist stripe, have "screwed up" Biblical interpretation. No rational human being could possibly believe otherwise.

I'm sure the Catholic Church has its biblical "screw ups" also, and when those arise, be assured I will not defend them. But the Catholic Church is far more credible and intellectually solid regarding Bible interpretation when compared to the fundamentalists.

I do not think your position here in this discussion is fundamentalist. I think it is a disagreement, but I think the arguments for your position are not as worthy as those of the Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So if we agree about the rock-Rock thing being Peter because of faulty translation and not knowing what Jesus REALLY said, what else are we wrong about?

---

Who's "we"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Who's "we"?

---

All of us.

(Is it time for another Darvocet?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be implying I have a "dogma".

Let me be perfectly clear about this. I have no dogma - no agenda - no ax to grind. My interest is simply getting to the truth of the passage we're discussing.

---

I don't have any ax to grind, either. I follow the language wherever it leads. That's how I ended up where I am. I frankly couldn't care less what any church, synod, council, mucky-muck or anybody else says about doctrines, about what's "at stake," or anything else. If we believe the words of the Bible are inspired, then I'll spend my life working to understand them properly.

I've seen every interpretation of the passage out there, seen what they're based on, seen the language itself, and all the rest. This is where I ended up. The Rock is Jesus (not Duane Johnson), not Peter; we're told more than once that the church's cornerstone is Jesus Christ and no one else. I can see the alternate explanation that the Rock is Peter's confession, and hence the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, but it doesn't really explain the Greek pun. And I do conclude that it's a pun that Jesus deliberately made in Greek, simply because it works so well as a pun. If he had said it in Aramaic, the gospel writer would have had no good reason to use two different words for "rock." When something that subtle is there in the language, I like to take it seriously. I know others disagree, and that's fine. My approach is as purely linguistic as I can make it, partly because if our theology isn't based on the language of the Bible, then what is it based on? And partly because I just naturally hate theology.

You probably already know that this isn't the only Greek pun we have in Jesus' words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

All of us.

(Is it time for another Darvocet?)

---

I prefer Demerol myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I prefer Demerol myself...

---

Wow! There's something better?? I'll have to ask my doctor for a 'script for during the tribulation period (just to link this minor derailment to the OP).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

... My approach is as purely linguistic as I can make it, partly because if our theology isn't based on the language of the Bible, then what is it based on?

---

The difficulty, of course, comes from the interpretation of the language.

(Btw, I've read the first chapter of your on-line novel. Fun, so far.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

As for the "keys to the kingdom" we can only speculate about what that meant. We do know that the passage about binding and loosing has been grossly misunderstood by some; what it says is "whatever you bind on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven" etc. The verbs are future perfects. Basically, Peter by his actions will acknowledge things that God has already established and decreed. My own view is that this refers to the spreading of the gospel beyond the Jews to encompass us Gentiles as well, which Peter initiated with Cornelius in Acts 10. It certainly isn't a blanket statement setting Peter up as the head of the church, and it says nothing whatsoever about any kind of succession.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that front.

---

Peter was the first among equals, the first among the Twelver.. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

Scriptural Tradition: In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

As you might know, Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

If you will, imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop; he asked twice (not once but twice), “Whom do they say that I am?” None of the disciples could give the answer except Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed.

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can't claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42, and once in Matthew 16:17. It's only used once by Jesus. (This holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor's gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

Warren Carroll best expresses the petros/petra/kepha argument; “In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man's name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ's words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew's Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church). But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys in the book of Revelations are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 “And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit.” But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to a earthly kingdom, a hellish kingdom, but no keys to heaven to heaven? The reason they're not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the heirs of St. Peter.

Each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals. For these reasons, and other not mentioned Catholics hold Peter the Apostle on which Christ built his Church, the first Pope.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

---

Excellent response. I agree completely. If we put ALL scripture into context I believe that is EXACTLY what Jesus was saying.

classyT, I very much disagree.
Why?
Because I believe all of that passage and do not pick what I want it to say.
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Peter was the first among equals, the first among the Twelver.. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

Scriptural Tradition: In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

As you might know, Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

If you will, imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop; he asked twice (not once but twice), “Whom do they say that I am?” None of the disciples could give the answer except Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed.

And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can’t claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42, and once in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus.

---

It's a different word than in Luke 1:42. This one means "happy."

Quote:

---

(This holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

---

While I appreciate all the effort you've put into this - you obviously know what you believe, and more important, you know why, which puts you miles ahead of most Christians - this drifts far off the "scriptural tradition" you were discussing. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was saying that Peter would be the "founding father" (for lack of a better term) of his church, nothing in the passage requires, or even indicates, any kind of succession.

Quote:

---

Warren Carroll best expresses the petros/petra/kepha argument; “In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

---

Actually, both words were perfectly good nouns in Greek. I've already given the difference in meaning between the two. And if he's going off the tradition about Matthew that Eusebius described, he's making a flying leap by saying it was Aramaic, because Eusebius actually says it was Hebrew. Carroll's explanation is about as convoluted as anything I've seen in recent memory, and I'm not totally sure what his point is.

Quote:

---

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

---

I already dealt with this. The verbs "bind" and "loose" are in a form that indicates the things described will have already happened; Peter's job is to acknowledge them on earth. He wasn't receiving any particular authority of his own. And the Isaiah passage is talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with this.

Quote:

---

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church).

---

Uh, to use the vernacular, you pulled that out of left field. Clearly the reference in verse 7 looks back to the Isaiah passage, but there is NOTHING relating it to Peter at all. The one who has this "key" is Jesus himself, the speaker in the passage. How you get from that to Peter is beyond me, because if anything this contradicts your idea, and Jesus is saying that the one with ALL the keys is himself and nobody else.

I have no problem with you believing in Catholic tradition as well as the biblical material, but if we're going to discuss the biblical part let's stick to that and try to avoid reading tradition into it, especially in cases like this where it's just not there.

dwashbur,
I fully agree with JoeT.
That was one of the main understandings I came to when on the road from Protestantism to Rome.
I fully believe that Jesus made Peter the prime minister of Christ's kingdom with the keys to heaven.
It should be no surprise that Peter can forgive sins. You and I can do so.
I very often forgive everyone who has sinned against me.
The difference is that Peter's forgiveness is accepted as such in heaven while mine may not be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

classyT, I very much disagree.
Why?
Beacuse I believe all of that passage and do not pick and choose what I want it to say.
Fred

---

AHHHHH Fred,

I believe YOU believe you don't pick. But you do. Catholics add way too much into that passage about Peter. It is what it is and no more. The same way you all read into the Lord's supper... when the Lord said to take eat of the bread it was his body. Clearly he was saying it was symbolic of his body. His BODY was right there attached to his head while he was talking to them.

If you take what the Lord was saying literally, how about when the Lord Jesus spoke to the woman at the well. He said whoever would drink of THIS water would never thirst again. He didn't mean physically thirst though and he wasn't talking about literal water... it was SYMBOLIC. See?


THEN when we are told to call no man our FATHER... Catholics call Priests Father and this blows my mind... the pope The HOLY Father. So... sorry Fredrick. You do pick. But hey... I still love you. ;)

Wondergirl, of course I call my father, Father or Popsey even. I was picking on Fred a bit. I believe the Lord was talking about calling anyone spiritually your Father. Only God is our Father.

The Apsotle Paul uses the term Father when he is speaking to them about provoking their children to anger and other places in the NT and OT it is certainly used.

Ex,

You making fun of me again? You believe the stuff I say about as much as you believe the moon is made of cheese... you ain't foolin me none. :)