Christ is The Rock

[Dan Edwin]

CHRIST IS THE ROCK

And coming into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say Me to be, the Son of Man? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:13-16).

Jesus answered and said to him, You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father 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 hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:17-18). Based on these verses, some believe Jesus was saying Peter was “the rockâ€Â, and that the Bishop of Rome (papacy) would have authority over the Roman Catholic Church, and even the whole church.

But if we look at the following verses, we see that Christ is “the Rockâ€Â, not Peter. Peter is one of twelve rocks (foundation blocks, stones) upon which the church (New Jerusalem) is built. The following verse reflects back to when the Hebrew nation Israel came out of Egypt. And all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). Christ is the Rock, Peter is a rock.

Christ is also referred to as “the Rock†of offense and a stumbling stone to unbelievers. As it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a Stumbling-stone and a Rock-of-offense, and everyone believing on Him shall not be put to shame" (Romans 9:33). Christ was a Rock of offense, a stumbling-stone to Israel, so through their unbelief, God had mercy on the Gentiles for them to be saved first, and then all Israel.

In describing the church, the bride of Christ (New Jerusalem), John refers to Christ as the chief cornerstone. Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, (Ephesians 2:19-20). Christ is the chief cornerstone.

Here we see the twelve apostles (including Peter) as the foundation upon which the church is built. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Revelation 21:14). The members of the church (the bride of Christ), are also the city of God (New Jerusalem), the foundation of which is built upon the twelve apostles, with the chief cornerstone being Jesus Christ.

The whole point of this is that the Apostle Peter was not “the Rock†upon which the church was to be built. As one of the Apostles, Peter was one foundation stone along with the other Apostles, but he was not “the Rockâ€Â. Christ is “the Rockââ‚Â, the chief cornerstone upon which the church is built.

 

[cyberjosh]

I agree with you that Christ is the rock refered to, and not Peter. Unfortunately I know some on this board who would not. Notably Catholics. ;)

P.S. Welcome to the boards! Enjoy your stay.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Toms777]

You covered it well. There is no way to make the foundation of the church anything but Christ if we go by God's word, and Paul confirms that:

1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

 

[biblecatholic]

Peter has primacy among the apostles.....

St Peter is mentioned 190 times(56 in acts alone) The next closest is St John with 34 times. Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.â€Â

Matt 16:19, is clear for everybody: It was to Peter, and only to Peter, that Jesus promised nothing less that "the keys of the kingdom of heaven(Is 22:15-25)"... and it was to Peter to whom Jesus made the other big promise: whatever you (Peter) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (Peter) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
If whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, it is because Peter is infallible when he binds or looses... Matthew and Paul were also infallible when they wrote their respective books of the Bible, though they did not have the huge and unique promise Peter had.

Jesus changed the name of Simon (soft) into Peter (rock) because the meaning of the name at that time was very important, it revealed the character or vocation of that person (Jn.1:42)... just as God had done with Abram-Abraham and Jacob-Israel (Abram, a nobody- Abraham, father of many nations... Jacob, a cheater- Israel, the prince of God).

Jesus did with Peter exactly what God had done with David in the Old Testament:

In Ezekiel 34:15 God says, "I myself shall tend my sheep"... but a few verses later, God says, "I shall raise up one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them; he shall feed them and be their shepherd" (Ez.34:23)...

... Jesus did exactly the same with Peter: In John 10, Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd"... but in John 21, Jesus says to Peter 3 times, "feed "my" lambs, tend "my" sheep"... the sheep of Jesus!...
Jesus is our Rock, and Peter is the Rock of the Church of Jesus... Jesus Himself says so in the Bible.

Peter speaks for the apostles Matt 18:21, Mk 8:29, lk 8:45, jn 6:69) Peter leads the apostles preaches boldly at pentecost acts 2:14, peter performs 1st miracle after pentecost acts 3:6-7, Peter leads first council(Council of Jerusalem)Acts 15:7

 

[cyberjosh]

Peter has primacy among the apostles.....

I love the word "primacy". It's such an endearing term of human pride. The last shall be first, and Paul "the least" did not consider himself less than any of those "pillars" so-called (Gal. 2:9).

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

But if we look at the following verses, we see that Christ is “the Rockâ€Â, not Peter.

Naturally, that is why Simon is called "Rock", Cephas, in the New Testament, not Jesus Christ.

It takes an extraordinary twist of Mathew 16 to think that Jesus was speaking about Himself when He is talking to Simon...

I can see in my mind how Jesus is speaking "and you are rock, and upon this rock I will build my church", speaking to Simon but pointing to Himself, the word "you" refering to Jesus... Only someone with a presupposition that Peter is NOT the rock would even venture to say such ridiculous ideas.

What is interesting is that the writers of the New Testament recognized that Simon was called "Peter" by Jesus. Those wacky, confused apostles... I guess they didn't see Jesus pointing to Himself...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

You covered it well. There is no way to make the foundation of the church anything but Christ if we go by God's word, and Paul confirms that:

1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Maybe Paul had a split personality, because he says something else in Ephesians 2...

If I may suggest, BOTH Jesus AND the Apostles/prophets are foundational, in different ways. Thus, the "either/or" of Jesus vs. Peter, a false dichotomy, blows away in the wind.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

Biblecatholic, Can you prove by using the Word of God Apostalic Succession? Can You prove that Peter was the first Pope? Do you understand the Great Commission? What did the Apostles do after Pentacost? They fulfilled the great commission and preached the remission of sins, layed hands on people so they might be healed, and cast out demons in the name of Jesus. Do you really believe they had confession booths set up for the masses that were saved?

Maybe you should study the Book of Acts to see how a church should be today.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[francisdesales]

Biblecatholic, Can you prove by using the Word of God Apostalic Succession? Can You prove that Peter was the first Pope? Do you understand the Great Commission? What did the Apostles do after Pentacost? They fulfilled the great commission and preached the remission of sins, layed hands on people so they might be healed, and cast out demons in the name of Jesus. Do you really believe they had confession booths set up for the masses that were saved?

Maybe you should study the Book of Acts to see how a church should be today.

Golfjack,

I will await Biblecatholic to answer your questions of the first paragraph.

On the second, however, I have two questions. First, where does the Acts of the Apostles state that "this is how a church should be TODAY? That will be impossible, given that we are no longer going to the synagogue for worship services. Secondly, WHICH PART of Acts would YOU like us to emulate? It is crystal clear that the very first several chapters of Acts relates a Church quite different from the one that would appear in the last half of Acts.

I believe Acts relates the development of the Church and how Christianity spread "to the ends of the earth" - which is where Paul ends up, at Rome. It certainly has lessons for us as a faith community. But are we meant to emulate perfectly the Church of 35 AD? Is that even possible?

Regards

 

[golfjack]

What makes one think that the gifts of the Spirit ceased to exist at the start of the first century? The Church should be a Word and Holy Ghost Church because this is quite obvious as God wants it. That brings the question to what happened in the first century? Fran. Have you ever read anything by Josephus, the Jewish scholar? Very interesting. Do you not think that the Pharisees entered to church and many followed them in error?


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[biblecatholic]

My scriptural references clearly show that Peter had primacy(not that you agree he was pope). Just to get that out of the way. Can we say we agree on that?(Ill deal with apostolic succession in a little bit). Primacy doesn’t mean he is better, smarter, holier, etc. It means God chose him to be the father(papa i.e. pope) figure for the church..(Is 22) All the apostles were apart of the great commission

I love the book of acts.....Are you sure you want to be like the church in Acts, then you would have to rely heavily on tradition especially since there was no bible at that time. Oral tradition was very important. As was infant baptism, baptism to be welcomed into the family of God, the Eucharist, and everything that the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) hold to today.
acts 2::37-42 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?â€Â
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.â€Â
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.†41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them(how were they added? baptism). 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers[/b].
The church spoken of here is the church the Catholic Church the only church around for 1500 yrs(besides the orthodox). I understand you do not agree. But Christ was not wanting “individualsim†which is so rampant today He left one head Peter not wanting everyone to make themselves their own “popeâ€Â. Beause everyone has a pope it’s either yourself, your pastor , a guy who wrote a book or the actual pope no-a-days it's mostly self-as-pope, and thats undeniable. But thats human nature, we're all so broken, thats why Christ appointed a leader of the church till his return. And with the spirit of truth protecting we know that even with bad people the truth will prevail

Confession booths are not mentioned, but confession is, you don’t need a booth for the command to confess your sins but it is nice for privacy.
John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.â€Â
2 cor 5:18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, etc.


james 5:14-16 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Confess your trespasses[a] to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.


Apostolic succession
Acts 1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms,
'(A)LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT';
and,
'(B)LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
acts 1:26 And they (A)drew lots for them, and the lot fell to (B)Matthias; and he was added to (C)the eleven apostles.
this shows that you can’t elect yourself to be and apostle
Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in (A)Crete, that you would set in order what remains and (B)appoint (C)elders(priest) in every city as I directed you,
I can give more but it was getting long and I don’t read the long ones much...

 

[francisdesales]

What makes one think that the gifts of the Spirit ceased to exist at the start of the first century?

I never said they did. Papal infallibility, for example, rests ENTIRELY on the gift of the Spirit, not the intellect of the current Pope (thank God)

The Church should be a Word and Holy Ghost Church because this is quite obvious as God wants it.

Well, there you have it. The Catholic Church!

That brings the question to what happened in the first century? Fran. Have you ever read anything by Josephus, the Jewish scholar? Very interesting. Do you not think that the Pharisees entered to church and many followed them in error?

I have read a little bit, but not much, from Josephus. What specifically did you want to address from Josephus? He doesn't say many good things about Christianity.

I don't think very many Pharisees entered the Church - which, I think, explains why the Christian Church was so predominantly from Gentile background in the second century. I believe that the rabbinical school was quite effective in preventing people from entering the Christian community. To do so, you would have to be ostracized from your own Jewish community, and I do not think a lot of Jews were willing to do that.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

You covered it well. There is no way to make the foundation of the church anything but Christ if we go by God's word, and Paul confirms that:

1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Maybe Paul had a split personality, because he says something else in Ephesians 2...

If I may suggest, BOTH Jesus AND the Apostles/prophets are foundational, in different ways. Thus, the "either/or" of Jesus vs. Peter, a false dichotomy, blows away in the wind.

Regards

Let's go back to the start and then get to Eph 2.

The word use in Matthew 16 for Peter is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or
a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation. Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church.

It is interesting to note the consistency of scripture in the use of these terms, Rock and stone. Throughout scripture, the Rock is always God (Father or Son):

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

Deut 32:15
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
NKJV

Deut 32:18
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
NKJV

And so on. Other examples are Deut 32:30-31, 2 Sam 22:47, 2 Sam 23:3, Ps 18:46, Ps 28:1, Ps 42:9, Ps 95:1, Ps 144:1, Isa 17:10, Isa 44:8, Hab 1:12, and 1 Cor 10:4-5.

As for the stone, there is much less, but here is what we do find:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called
Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones,
are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

So, we are stones, but there are references to Jesus as a stone as well:

Rom 9:33
33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
NKJV

He is both a Rock and a Stone. That is because he is the cornerstone:

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter
being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stone per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Jesus, as the Rock, is also the cornerstone, which is the most notable piece of the foundation, but the confession of Peter that Jesus is Christ is the foundation upon which the church will be built. We see this endorsed in scripture as well, later by Paul:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.

Now, a short backtrack to Ephesians 2. Does it say that the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation? NO! The Apostles and Prophets established the foundation of the church, but this does not say that they are the foundation. For context to this passage read the focus of the passage just before:

Eph 2:14-18

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
NKJV

The focus is Jesus Christ.

 

[Toms777]

My scriptural references clearly show that Peter had primacy(not that you agree he was pope). Just to get that out of the way. Can we say we agree on that?(Ill deal with apostolic succession in a little bit). Primacy doesn’t mean he is better, smarter, holier, etc. It means God chose him to be the father(papa i.e. pope) figure for the church..(Is 22) All the apostles were apart of the great commission

No, Peter did not have primacy. We do not find that in scripture. If he had primacy, why was James the person who had the authority at the first council in Acts 15? Why did Paul rebuke hinm when he was in error, on a doctrinal matter, and why did Peter accept his rebuke?

No, there is absolutely no basis for the claim that Peter had primacy.

I love the book of acts.....Are you sure you want to be like the church in Acts, then you would have to rely heavily on tradition especially since there was no bible at that time. Oral tradition was very important. As was infant baptism, baptism to be welcomed into the family of God, the Eucharist, and everything that the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es) hold to today.

No, they had the scriptures, the OT, which were sufficient:

2 Tim 3:14-16
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

And what did Jesus do when he needed to validate or refute a point? He went to the authority of scripture. Jesus, who was God Himself, used scripture to validate doctrinal points. What makes you think a man who is not God has greater authority?

The church spoken of here is the church the Catholic Church the only church around for 1500 yrs(besides the orthodox).

No. First, that could not have been the catholic church because the Catholic church did not exist at that time. It was created in 325 AD by Constantine. Further, no denomination existed at that time. And lastly, longevity is no evidence of authority or of God's approval.

I understand you do not agree. But Christ was not wanting “individualsim†which is so rampant today He left one head Peter not wanting everyone to make themselves their own “popeâ€Â. Beause everyone has a pope it’s either yourself, your pastor , a guy who wrote a book or the actual pope no-a-days it's mostly self-as-pope, and thats undeniable. But thats human nature, we're all so broken, thats why Christ appointed a leader of the church till his return. And with the spirit of truth protecting we know that even with bad people the truth will prevail

Indeed. Scripture says:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Notice NO private interpretation - no you, not me, not Peter, not the pope. We must go by what the word of God says and allow it to speak to us and to submit ourselves to it.

Apostolic succession
Acts 1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms,
'(A)LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT';
and,
'(B)LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
acts 1:26 And they (A)drew lots for them, and the lot fell to (B)Matthias; and he was added to (C)the eleven apostles.
this shows that you can’t elect yourself to be and apostle

First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas. We see that He did choose Paul and He tell us in Revelation that there are only 12 apostles. As good a man as Matthias no doubt was, he appears not to have been God's choice. But that being put to one side, if you want to use this to argue apostolic succession, you have more problems. What are the criteria for an apostle as given in this passage?

Acts 1:21-22
21 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
NKJV

Not long after that was written, a few short decades, all qualified men were dead.

 

[francisdesales]

Let's go back to the start and then get to Eph 2.

The word use in Matthew 16 for Peter is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock.

First of all, Simon was named "Cephas", which is a huge rock. The Greek transliteration would be petra - but this is a feminine word, so petros is used. If the Greek wanted to portray Simon as a little rock, it would say "lithos", as the word is used in 1 Peter, ironically. Jesus is NEVER called "Cephas" in the Bible...

Secondly, the passage just does not allow for Jesus to call Himself the rock. He uses the word "you", which is certainly not refering to Himself when He calls "you" the rock that He will build the Church. It is clear that Jesus is the builder, the architect. He is not building upon Himself.

Next, Jesus calls Simon blessed - and THEN, commissions Him. It would be very odd indeed that the Father in heaven would reveal something to Simon that serves no purpose. The Father is obviously signaling to Jesus that upon Simon, the Church would be built upon - a visible rock. Note, the geography of the area where this occurs, at the headwaters of the Jordan river where a huge rock exists with a pagan temple sits. Jesus is obviously making a comparison with THAT "church" and the one HE is building.

And finally, God has changed the name of someone. This is a recognition of a very special place in the salvation history of man. Abram. Isaac. And now, Simon. All leaders of the People of God. Does this remove God from the picture? What do you think the Jews thought? Did they consider God removed because Abraham was the "Father of the Promised People"?

Sorry, the text just doesn't bear with your iegesis. You are clearly reading into the passage what it cannot support because you refuse to listen to what it says.

It is interesting to note the consistency of scripture in the use of these terms, Rock and stone. Throughout scripture, the Rock is always God (Father or Son):

People use different metaphors for different things. Rock can also mean... a stone. It is a term that indicates stability, a stability where even the Gates of Hell shall not prevail over them. Notice Christ says that SIMON will have the power to bind and loosen. SIMON is the rock in this passage, despite what other passages from Deuteronomy might say. We need to read the context of the text, not some un-related text and apply the metaphor without considering what the original text says...

Eph 2:19-22

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter
being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stone per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Umm, the word "Petras" means "rock". Lithos is a stone. The useage is much more clear in Aramaic. Ephesians calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundation of the Church. That is normally rock, unless you think Christ built upon sand... A little bit of thought can go a long way here. This is not an "either/or" case. God built His Church upon men whom He continues to guide so as to continue the spread of His saving Word to all mankind. The Word of God is the message, and in that sense, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, without which, the Church falls. Is it necessary to do away with what God created?

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.

Sorry, Matthew 16 does not support your idea. Christ built His Church. If He was doing as you claim, Jesus would have said, "I am Cephas" or "Upon MYSELF I build my Church". The grammar just doesn't support your iegesis. It is clear that Jesus is recognizing Simon and the work that God has in store for him JUST as Simon recognizes the work of God in the Messiah, the Son of God. Your explanation makes nonsense out of the Scriptures. It is not backed up by the fact that SIMON is called Cephas - by Paul, no less. Jesus is never called "cephas", an Aramaic word, in the Greek Bible. Only SImon. The reason is that Jesus gave this special name to SIMON ALONE.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

No, Peter did not have primacy. We do not find that in scripture. If he had primacy, why was James the person who had the authority at the first council in Acts 15? Why did Paul rebuke hinm when he was in error, on a doctrinal matter, and why did Peter accept his rebuke?

Who else was given the keys, the office of prime minister? If you read Acts 15 carefully, you will find that Peter did indeed have authority - when he stood up and spoke, everyone shut their mouths and listened. Paul didn't rebuke Peter on a doctrinal matter, but on his bad example of not eating with the Gentiles. Peter accepted it because Paul was correct. But that proves nothing because the Catholic Church doesn't claim that Peter or the Pope is perfect. Only on infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking for Christianity. Paul expresses the idea of infallibility pretty well in Galatians 1:8-9

No, they had the scriptures, the OT, which were sufficient:

Not according to Paul when he writes to the Thessalonians or the Corinthians. Not when he writes to Timothy. Clearly, what Paul taught was important, not the medium that he used.

And what did Jesus do when he needed to validate or refute a point? He went to the authority of scripture.

Actually, He referred to HIMSELF, since HE was the fulfillment of the Torah. The entire Bible is about Christ, in some manner.

"You have heard it said, but I tell you..."

First, that could not have been the catholic church because the Catholic church did not exist at that time. It was created in 325 AD by Constantine. Further, no denomination existed at that time. And lastly, longevity is no evidence of authority or of God's approval.

Oh brother, that is hilarious. Read some history for yourself. Check out my signature line - written in 110 AD...

Notice NO private interpretation - no you, not me, not Peter, not the pope. We must go by what the word of God says and allow it to speak to us and to submit ourselves to it.

In other words, you own interpretation. Whatever you currently "think" about a Scriptural passage is "God's word to you" until you change your mind... You accept and then overturn the intent of Scriptures in one sentence!!!

First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas.

Say what? It is becoming clear that your knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures is lacking:

And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of everyone, show which of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take the lot [or inheritance] of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas rebelled that he might go to his own place Acts 1:23-24

So God is involved in EVERYTHING BUT the appointment of Matthias...Even when the Apostles pray to God SPECIFICALLY to choose a successor. Could you be a bit more careful before you make such ridiculous statements? It is hard to fathom how you missed these verses when you quoted from them to biblecatholic.

Not long after that was written, a few short decades, all qualified men were dead.

The Bible doesn't say a person must be a witness of the resurrection to be an apostle, just that in the selection for Judas' replacement, they desired to have a witness... Elsewhere, other men are called apostles who did not see the resurrection. I can think of at least Paul and Silvanus, I think Timothy, as well.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

Let's go back to the start and then get to Eph 2.

The word use in Matthew 16 for Peter is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock.

First of all, Simon was named "Cephas", which is a huge rock. The Greek transliteration would be petra - but this is a feminine word, so petros is used. If the Greek wanted to portray Simon as a little rock, it would say "lithos", as the word is used in 1 Peter, ironically. Jesus is NEVER called "Cephas" in the Bible...

Let's see what scripture says about the translation.

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

Secondly, the passage just does not allow for Jesus to call Himself the rock. He uses the word "you", which is certainly not refering to Himself when He calls "you" the rock that He will build the Church. It is clear that Jesus is the builder, the architect. He is not building upon Himself.

Let's look at other places where Jesus used the Greek singular of "you":

Matt 5:23-26
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge
hand you over to the officer, and you are thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
NKJV

In this passage, Jesus uses the Greek singular of then word "you" in each case that is highlighted. The various occurrences varies in case only (Dative, Genitive or Accusative), but all are the singular of the Greek word "you". So whom is He speaking to in Matthew 5? Let's go back to the start of the chapter and see:

Matt 5:1-2
5:1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
NKJV

He is therefore speaking to the "multitudes", not an individual, yet His words are aimed at each person as an individual by using the singular of the Greek word "you". If we look at Matthew 16 in context, we see the same thing. Jesus speaking to a number of people, but using the singular to point out that each and every person, as a priest (1 Peter 2:9) has a responsibility to use the keys, the gospel, to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Those who would take the keys and claim them for themselves are following the path of the Pharisees, not of Jesus.

Next, Jesus calls Simon blessed - and THEN, commissions Him. It would be very odd indeed that the Father in heaven would reveal something to Simon that serves no purpose. The Father is obviously signaling to Jesus that upon Simon, the Church would be built upon - a visible rock.

These are all your assumptions, but I contend, as I have shown that when we look at the context of scripture as I have above, you assumption falls apart. Because the premise is not valid, neither is the conclusion.

It is interesting to note the consistency of scripture in the use of these terms, Rock and stone. Throughout scripture, the Rock is always God (Father or Son):

People use different metaphors for different things. Rock can also mean... a stone.

People maybe. Scripture is consistent. You made a statement which i contend is not true and which you have not validated. Scripture, as i showed with numerous references makes a specific distinction between the Rock and the stones.

It is a term that indicates stability, a stability where even the Gates of Hell shall not prevail over them. Notice Christ says that SIMON will have the power to bind and loosen.

First, you are trying to move on claiming using a point, which I have establish to be un-scriptural as a premise for you next point regarding binding and lossing (the claim that this was given to Peter). Now that alone would be enough to deep-six that argument, but let's go on and examine the argument in context.

What were these keys? We see that the Pharisees had the keys:

Luke 11:52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

The keys were knowledge, but what knowledge would bind people and what knowledge was it that the Pharisees did not use to loose themselves by entering in? It was the key of the truth and specifically the truth of the gospel. The Pharisees were the priests who had the key of truth by which they could guide the people into salvation, and instead of loosing the keys to open the door, they bound the key, took it away from the people and bound themselves by not using it.

We see here in Matthew 16:

Matt 16:19-20
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
NKJV

Jesus gave the keys to the disciples. We see in Matthew 16:13 that he was speaking to the disciples:

Matt 16:13
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
NKJV

The gospel was not given just to one man, but to the disciples to use to take into the word to bring salvation to the people. Note that even the Pharisees were not given the keys, but Luke 11:52 says that they took the keys. Who from? It was from the people of Israel.

The keys were never intended to be in the hands of only some people or one person, but Jesus took the keys from the Pharisees and gave them to the disciples, people who had already entered into their salvation and who knew that to use the keys, they had to give them to the people, that they too might enter in. If they use the keys, people will no longer be bound and can enter in and be saved. It is the keys of knowledge that loose men to be free in Christ and be no longer bound by sin.

 

[Toms777]

No, Peter did not have primacy. We do not find that in scripture. If he had primacy, why was James the person who had the authority at the first council in Acts 15? Why did Paul rebuke him when he was in error, on a doctrinal matter, and why did Peter accept his rebuke?

Who else was given the keys, the office of prime minister? If you read Acts 15 carefully, you will find that Peter did indeed have authority - when he stood up and spoke, everyone shut their mouths and listened.

I see no special mentioned of special treatment given to peter that was not given to other speakers:

Acts 15:7
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them:
NKJV

There is a mention of silence, but that was given for Paul, Barnabas and James, not peter.

Acts 15:11-14
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
NKJV

Paul didn't rebuke Peter on a doctrinal matter, but on his bad example of not eating with the Gentiles. Peter accepted it because Paul was correct.

Gal 2:14-15
I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
NKJV

He was Judaizing - compelling Gentiles to live as Jews. That is a doctrinal matter, and Paul had the authority to rebuke Peter. Therefore Peter could not claim primacy.

No, they had the scriptures, the OT, which were sufficient:

Not according to Paul when he writes to the Thessalonians or the Corinthians. Not when he writes to Timothy. Clearly, what Paul taught was important, not the medium that he used.

And what did Jesus do when he needed to validate or refute a point? He went to the authority of scripture.

Actually, He referred to HIMSELF, since HE was the fulfillment of the Torah. The entire Bible is about Christ, in some manner.

Let's look at what scripture says - What did Jesus use as His source for doctrine?

Matt 21:41-42
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
NKJV

Matt 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the
Scriptures nor the power of God.
NKJV

Matt 26:56
56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
NKJV

John 5:39
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and
these are they which testify of Me.
NKJV

I could provide numerous other references. Jesus went to the written scriptures when
he wanted to establish what the truth of doctrine is. Since Jesus is God (Is 9:6), it is fair
to assume that He would know where to find God’s truth. Jesus did not identify any other
source for God’s word other than scripture.

First, that could not have been the catholic church because the Catholic church did not exist at that time. It was created in 325 AD by Constantine. Further, no denomination existed at that time. And lastly, longevity is no evidence of authority or of God's approval.

Oh brother, that is hilarious. Read some history for yourself. Check out my signature line - written in 110 AD...

I believe that this is deviating off topic however, l;et me close this issue with a quote from Cardinal John Henry Newman:

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."

Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.

Notice NO private interpretation - no you, not me, not Peter, not the pope. We must go by what the word of God says and allow it to speak to us and to submit ourselves to it.

In other words, you own interpretation. Whatever you currently "think" about a Scriptural passage is "God's word to you" until you change your mind... You accept and then overturn the intent of Scriptures in one sentence!!!

First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas.

Say what? It is becoming clear that your knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures is lacking:

And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of everyone, show which of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take the lot [or inheritance] of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas rebelled that he might go to his own place Acts 1:23-24

First, just for the sake of civility, please cease and desist with the personal comments. If you feel that your position is defensible, then do so using factual validation, not ad hominems. That makes your position appear weak, not strong. Those whose positions are strong have no need for such personal attacks.

Second, your quotes did not show anywhere that the appointment was endorsed by God. The method that they were using was of their choice, not given by prophetic revelation. Keep in mind that there are only 12 Apostles and so either Matthias or Paul is not chosen by God. Since all apostles other than Matthias were chosen personally by Jesus, I think that we have our answer.

Not long after that was written, a few short decades, all qualified men were dead.

The Bible doesn't say a person must be a witness of the resurrection to be an apostle, just that in the selection for Judas' replacement, they desired to have a witness... Elsewhere, other men are called apostles who did not see the resurrection. I can think of at least Paul and Silvanus, I think Timothy, as well.

So then please show me where in scripture this criteria, which was applied to each and every one of the 12 apostles suddenly ceased. Indeed, show me how you can have apostolic succession where scripture makes allowance for only 12 apostles.

 

[francisdesales]

Let's see what scripture says about the translation.

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).

Cephas is Aramaic, not Greek. It is a proper name given to Simon. Ever wonder why a Greek writing would carry over an Aramaic word??? If Peter meant "little stone", there would be no need to carry over the Aramaic. It should be obvious that Cephas is a proper name given to Simon.

Let's look at other places where Jesus used the Greek singular of "you"

All you wrote has nothing to do with my point - a red herring - that the word "you" does NOT refer to oneself! Thus, in Matthew 16, Jesus says "you", meaning ANOTHER PERSON.

People maybe. Scripture is consistent. You made a statement which i contend is not true and which you have not validated. Scripture, as i showed with numerous references makes a specific distinction between the Rock and the stones.

Nonsense. Different people wrote Scriptures, using different literary genres and meanings of metaphors. It is strictly your desperate attempt to destroy the literal and obvious meaning of Mat 16 by some invention that whenever the Bible says "Rock", it means "God". NOWHERE does the Bible make such a claim. That is your unwarranted presumption. Do a word search on rock. You will find that it often refers to ... a rock. Thus, the word has different meanings, depending on the context. The context supports the fact that Jesus is talking to someone else, calling them a "rock", something solid and stable that He will build His Church upon. Doesn't that become clear when He says "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail"?

What were these keys? We see that the Pharisees had the keys:

Luke 11:52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

The keys were knowledge, but what knowledge would bind people and what knowledge was it that the Pharisees did not use to loose themselves by entering in? It was the key of the truth and specifically the truth of the gospel.

Keys are symbols of authority, as well. Again, you are caught up in thinking that one word has only one meaning. CONTEXT! Jesus is not talking about knowledge!!!

It is certain that the audience of Jesus' speech in Mat 16 were thinking of this OT Scriptures:

I will clothe him with thy robe and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David I will lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the sons and the grandsons, all the vessels of small quantity, from the cups to drink [from] even unto all the instruments of music. In that day, saith the LORD of the hosts, the nail that is fastened in the sure place shall be removed and be cut down and fall and the burden that [was] upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD has spoken [it] Ez 22:22-25

Thus, keys DO have more than one meaning. The context determines the meaning. Binding and loosening are rabbinical terms used to indicate judicial authority.

Jesus gave the keys to the disciples. We see in Matthew 16:13 that he was speaking to the disciples

He was speaking plurally in verse 13, but not 18-20, once Simon, through the Father, had related that Jesus was the Messiah. NO ONE ELSE was given this knowledge. Only Peter is given the keys.

The gospel was not given just to one man, but to the disciples to use to take into the word to bring salvation to the people. Note that even the Pharisees were not given the keys, but Luke 11:52 says that they took the keys. Who from? It was from the people of Israel.

First, Jesus didn't take away the "keys" from the people of Israel! By saying this, you are implying that "keys" has ANOTHER meaning, which you refused to admit earlier!

Secondly, of course the Gospel was not given to one man. But only one man was given the order to "feed my sheep". Only one man was given the Keys of authority, as per Ez 22. Only one man would aid in the faith of the other disciples once the flock was struck. You see, in every Gospel, Peter is spoken of as the leader of the Church, appointed by Christ.

The keys of Mat 16 is different than the keys of Luke 11. All one has to do is look at the context. The "key of knowledge" just doesn't fit with what Jesus is saying. It is a "key of authority", with the POWER to bind and loosen, verified by HEAVEN ITSELF! This authority would never fall, even to the Gates of hell. Knowledge just doesn't fit into that context. Nor was Jesus speaking to Himself when He said "YOU are Peter".

Clearly, you are missing the intent of the Word of God and explain away the clear sense of the Scriptures to support your personal interpretations. I pray that God opens your eyes to see how much you are twisting His Sacred Words.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

Cephas is Aramaic, not Greek. It is a proper name given to Simon. Ever wonder why a Greek writing would carry over an Aramaic word??? If Peter meant "little stone", there would be no need to carry over the Aramaic. It should be obvious that Cephas is a proper name given to Simon.

I quoted scripture. All scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). It is not me that you argue with here.

Let's look at other places where Jesus used the Greek singular of "you"

All you wrote has nothing to do with my point - a red herring - that the word "you" does NOT refer to oneself! Thus, in Matthew 16, Jesus says "you", meaning ANOTHER PERSON.[/quote]

I never said that Jesus meant himself by saying "you". Where on earth did you get that from???

This does not support your point. You claimed that you was singular to Peter. Scripture does not support you. Why don't you read all of the scripture that I quoted rather than stopping on the first line?

People maybe. Scripture is consistent. You made a statement which i contend is not true and which you have not validated. Scripture, as i showed with numerous references makes a specific distinction between the Rock and the stones.

Nonsense. Different people wrote Scriptures, using different literary genres and meanings of metaphors. It is strictly your desperate attempt to destroy the literal and obvious meaning of Mat 16 by some invention that whenever the Bible says "Rock", it means "God". NOWHERE does the Bible make such a claim. That is your unwarranted presumption. Do a word search on rock. You will find that it often refers to ... a rock. Thus, the word has different meanings, depending on the context. The context supports the fact that Jesus is talking to someone else, calling them a "rock", something solid and stable that He will build His Church upon. Doesn't that become clear when He says "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail"?

Well, it looks like we are starting to get nowhere. I quoted scripture, and all you can come back with is "nonsense" and a personal declaration of your opinion.

Remember this:

2 Peter 1:19-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Private interpretation is non scriptural. We must allow scripture to interpret itself. As much as I respect the right of each and every person to have their own opinion, when they tell me that I must accept their opinion instead of what I read in scripture, then that is a non-starter.

What were these keys? We see that the Pharisees had the keys:

Luke 11:52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

The keys were knowledge, but what knowledge would bind people and what knowledge was it that the Pharisees did not use to loose themselves by entering in? It was the key of the truth and specifically the truth of the gospel.

Keys are symbols of authority, as well. Again, you are caught up in thinking that one word has only one meaning. CONTEXT! Jesus is not talking about knowledge!!!

Again, rather than trying to just tell me that I am wrong, defend your position scripturally. I was caught up in nothing - I validated my position from scripture.

It is certain that the audience of Jesus' speech in Mat 16 were thinking of this OT Scriptures:

Certain? Please validate that assumption.

Jesus gave the keys to the disciples. We see in Matthew 16:13 that he was speaking to the disciples

He was speaking plurally in verse 13, but not 18-20, once Simon, through the Father, had related that Jesus was the Messiah. NO ONE ELSE was given this knowledge. Only Peter is given the keys.

I demonstrated otherwise from scripture. You have not refuted a single word that I said or quoted in my last message. You are only pitting your personal opinion against what I quoted from scripture.

The gospel was not given just to one man, but to the disciples to use to take into the word to bring salvation to the people. Note that even the Pharisees were not given the keys, but Luke 11:52 says that they took the keys. Who from? It was from the people of Israel.

First, Jesus didn't take away the "keys" from the people of Israel! By saying this, you are implying that "keys" has ANOTHER meaning, which you refused to admit earlier!

I have only ever stated one meaning for the keys. I do not see how you conclude that I must be arguing a second meaning.

Secondly, of course the Gospel was not given to one man. But only one man was given the order to "feed my sheep".

This was not unique to Peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is
found here:

1 Pet:5:1 The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of
the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of
constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of
a ready mind;
3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves
ensamples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of
glory that fadeth not away.

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about
preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
blood.

Only one man was given the Keys of authority, as per Ez 22. Only one man would aid in the faith of the other disciples once the flock was struck. You see, in every Gospel, Peter is spoken of as the leader of the Church, appointed by Christ.

You claim that it is one man, but I showed otherwise in Matthew 16. Now you go to Ezekiel, and you made an assumption that this relates to Ezekiel, but have failed to validate that assumption. Until and unless you can validate your assumption, I see no further need to refute you Ez 22 argument.

The keys of Mat 16 is different than the keys of Luke 11. All one has to do is look at the context. The "key of knowledge" just doesn't fit with what Jesus is saying. It is a "key of authority", with the POWER to bind and loosen, verified by HEAVEN ITSELF!

In context my position makes perfect sense. You claim that it is wrong - do more than say that it is wrong. Jesus does not say that it is a key of authority, what he says is that they are:

Matt 16:19
keys of the kingdom of heaven,
NKJV

So why does anyone get into the Kingdom of heaven? It is when they are saved. What was the mission of the church? Spread the gospel. This is in harmony with what Jesus says about the keys in Luke 11. You have given no reason to believe that the keys are anything else.

This authority would never fall, even to the Gates of hell. Knowledge just doesn't fit into that context.

Jesus did not say that the authority would never fail. He said that his church would never fail.

Matt 16:18
....My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
NKJV

Nor was Jesus speaking to Himself when He said "YOU are Peter".

Strawman argument. No one said that Jesus was talking to himself and no one suggested it but you.

Clearly, you are missing the intent of the Word of God and explain away the clear sense of the Scriptures to support your personal interpretations. I pray that God opens your eyes to see how much you are twisting His Sacred Words.

It has been my observation over the years that when a debater resorts to ad hominems or negative personal comments against an opponent rather than dealing with the issue, it is an indication that they are unable to refute the arguments being put forward and wish to distract from the weakness of their position.

Once again I will ask that you please desist from lowering the quality of this discussion by making demeaning personal comments.