Christ is The Rock

[francisdesales]

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

You use it improperly. Your useage, your understanding, is not inspired.

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

From the idea that Jesus calls Himself the Rock in Matthew 16!

What ELSE could you possibly mean? You tell me to believe the insane notion that Jesus says "you are rock" and refering to Himself??????? Have you not been reading your posts? "Christ is the rock" of Matthew 16?

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.

You aren't quoting Scriptures that pertain to Matthew 16. You use a verse that has NOTHING to do with Matthew 16. YOUR USEAGE is nonsense - metaphors do not ALWAYS take the same meaning. EVEN YOU, no doubt, can understand that.

Unless you eat my flesh, you cannot have life.

Now. Interpret that for me... And if you say that "flesh" means "HIs Word", I will post about 500 verses that show that "flesh" means "body tissue" or some such thing... If I use the same tactics that YOU use, I suppose you would then have to comply and accept that Jesus meant His flesh, not His words...

Is this sinking in? Words take on different meanings, and even you must admit that. Otherwise, you had better reconsider a number of "Protestant" interpretations of the Bible.

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.

So quoting Ezekiel 22 is meaningless. You sure have a way of picking and choosing what IS Scriptures. Apparently, only your selections are from the bible. Mine are "nothing", according to you. Kind of like Acts 1:24-25. Nothing. No comment. Ignored. What else is new? Why should I expect anything different from someone who twists Scriptures so badly as to think that Jesus is the Rock of Matthew 16.

Certain? Please validate that assumption.

I presume you can read for yourself. It is nearly a mirror of Matthew 16's binding and loosening, a giving of keys as a sign of authority. It is only your lack of desire to read what is there that prevents you from seeing the rather obvious similarity.

I am not the only one who has seen the connection. So did the writers of the first few centuries.

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.

You need to stop making assumptions about what you did! You did not demonstrate from Scriptures that Jesus was speaking plurally the entire Matthew 16 discourse! I refered you to Matthew 16:18-20, and the "you" is singular. But again, you have already got it all figured out. Like Acts 1:24-25 is ignored and that God had nothing to do with Matthias being selected a successor. Ignore it and perhaps it will go away. You are only kidding yourself, not me.

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.

So you are ready to admit that "keys" means something other than "knowledge". Good. Progress is being made.

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

It is - since I said that JESUS gave this authority singularly to Peter. You quote something that Peter tells the flock because someone must continue the ministry of leading the flock. The Church is not a one-generational organization.

While others are given the ministry to lead their local flocks, only Peter was given the ministry of leading HIS flock, Christ's flock, the entire Church. Thus, the name change...the giving of the keys of authority. Only to Peter.

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.

Your arguments have been seen and found wanting. They have been refuted for 500 years. It is only people like you who refuse to read the Bible as-is who have problems with it. I know you are proud of your arguments, but honestly, they have not convinced me one iota that you are right. I have heard them all before and they are lame. Not you, your arguments.

I leave you with a final proof. Read the Church Fathers. What did the FIRST few generations of Christians believe regarding Peter, regarding apostolic succession. Being the closest to when Scriptures were written, hearing the authors speaking for themselves, they would obviously have a good idea what Matthew and John and Paul meant. What did they write??

------
Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

----
Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

-----
Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

----
Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

-----
Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

------
I think it is self-evident that you and the first Christians have different ideas on how to read the Bible. That, hopefully, is cause for you to re-analyze the evidence I have given and stop ignoring the Scriptures that you don't like.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

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

You use it improperly. Your useage, your understanding, is not inspired.

Neither is your. That is why we need to go to scripture to prove our points, not just make comments as you just did, saying effective;y - "you're wrong" and this establishing yourself as the authority. That is not convincing.

So if you find that I have not responded to some of your comments, go back and have a look and that is likely the reason.

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

From the idea that Jesus calls Himself the Rock in Matthew 16!

No, Jesus does not call Himself the Rock in Matthew 16. matthew 16 tells us that Jesus is the foundation upon which tghe church is built, with specific reference to Peter's declaration. I don't know who told you that Jesus was talking to Himself there, but you should address that person, not me.

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.

You aren't quoting Scriptures that pertain to Matthew 16. You use a verse that has NOTHING to do with Matthew 16. YOUR USEAGE is nonsense - metaphors do not ALWAYS take the same meaning. EVEN YOU, no doubt, can understand that.

Okay, now I set some ground rules. Any comments where you are unable to provide validation but rather just make unvalidated attacks, I will delete. It makes no sense to waste my time if you are not prepared to put up a reasoned defense of your position.

Unless you eat my flesh, you cannot have life.

Now. Interpret that for me... And if you say that "flesh" means "HIs Word", I will post about 500 verses that show that "flesh" means "body tissue" or some such thing... If I use the same tactics that YOU use, I suppose you would then have to comply and accept that Jesus meant His flesh, not His words...

Different topic, but in that case, once again I would go to scripture and look at the meaning of that word in the context of how and where it is used.

John 6:63-64
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
NKJV

Is this sinking in? Words take on different meanings, and even you must admit that. Otherwise, you had better reconsider a number of "Protestant" interpretations of the Bible.

I am not a protestant. Let's also get off the "labeling" shall we? Deal with the topic.

I am not the only one who has seen the connection. So did the writers of the first few centuries.

We could quote writers back and forth for months - does not prove anything? Does the one with most writers win? No. I stick with God's word as my standard. My may fail, God won't.

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.

So you are ready to admit that "keys" means something other than "knowledge". Good. Progress is being made.

Apparently you did not read what I said - read my lips - there is but one meaning for these keys mentioned by Peter - scripture tells us that they are the keys of knowledge.

Argue your own points and don't try putting words in my mouth.

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

It is - since I said that JESUS gave this authority singularly to Peter.

Again, you make a point and fail to validate your claim. I provided scriptural backup.

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.

Your arguments have been seen and found wanting. They have been refuted for 500 years.

And yours for 2000. But using ad hominems does not add, but rather subtracts from the credibility of your arguments.

I leave you with a final proof. Read the Church Fathers.

Again, As I said, I could duel with quotes too, and I have gone through so many of these quotes in the past only to find that the context says something else. But I take scripture as my standard, so you will find that the quotes won't gain you any ground with me, unless you are willing to validate your points from scripture.

 

[francisdesales]

That is why we need to go to scripture to prove our points, not just make comments as you just did, saying effective;y - "you're wrong" and this establishing yourself as the authority. That is not convincing.

Ditto. Quoting Scriptures ALONE does not prove your point, since interpretation is vital to understanding theology and the concepts that we take from the bible. Thus, quoting Deuteronomy's use of "rock" proves nothing about the rock of Matthew 16. Your self-proclaimed "quoting scriptures" is meaningless unless you can show a connection between the context of Matthew 16 and Deuteronomy. I have found that quoting Scriptures in of itself does not help these matters, especially when taken out of context. Thus, I ignore your "validation", because it is NOT validated by the Scriptures.

matthew 16 tells us that Jesus is the foundation upon which tghe church is built.

Let's continue with this and you'll see where your ideas lead...

Where does Jesus say HE is the foundation in Matthew 16??? You are implying that Jesus is speaking to Himself when He says "YOU ARE ROCK". Don't you even realize what you are saying?

Okay, now I set some ground rules. Any comments where you are unable to provide validation but rather just make unvalidated attacks, I will delete. It makes no sense to waste my time if you are not prepared to put up a reasoned defense of your position.

I am attacking you because I say that Deuteronomy's "rock" has nothing to do with Matthew's "rock"? :o

Give me a break. If you delete this, that is because you refuse to understand that metaphors don't always mean the same thing. Your stance is akin to saying "I'm taking my ball and going home because I am not getting my way". I have already given you a Scripture that validates my reasoning, from John 6. Are you prepared to make the claim that Jesus meant His flesh when elsewhere in Scriptures, flesh means flesh? I have given you an example, but yet, you complain and whine that I am "wasting your time"? Let's continue with this...

Unless you eat my flesh, you cannot have life.

Different topic, but in that case, once again I would go to scripture and look at the meaning of that word in the context of how and where it is used.

My point is that metaphors or words take on different meanings because different writers are utilizing the words. I am not trying to begin another topic. Clearly, you understand Christ's "flesh" to mean something other than the vast majority of the useage of flesh in the Bible. Now, try to keep up. If YOU use Deuteronomy's "rock" to mean that EVERYWHERE in the Bible, rock must mean "God", then, according to consistent rules of interpretation, "FLESH" must mean flesh. YOU CLEARLY FOLLOW THIS PRACTICE, BUT REFUSE IT TO ME???

Then you complain that I waste your time? Oh, the irony!

Thus, I refute your argument that Deuteronomy's metaphor of Rock = God applies to Matthew 16. The context clearly says something ELSE is "rock". YOU also have made it clear that "I never said that Jesus was speaking about Himself when He said "YOU". Jesus is not the rock of Matthew 16! Simon Peter is the Rock. I cannot make this any clearer. The argument you use - that Deuteronomy proves God is the Rock in Matthew - is ridiculous and inconsistent with YOUR OWN manner of interpreting the Bible (as per John 6). Now, if you think this is attacking you, then you are too closely joining your argument with your person. Your argument is inconsistent and ridiculous. I don't consider you that way, just your argument on this subject.

I am not a protestant. Let's also get off the "labeling" shall we? Deal with the topic.

You are protesting the Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures, so you, by definition, would be a Protestant. But you are correct, we should stick to the topic.

We could quote writers back and forth for months - does not prove anything? Does the one with most writers win? No. I stick with God's word as my standard. My may fail, God won't.

Those writers, as well as myself, ALSO use God's word as the standard. Unfortunately, you don't realize that the bible can be read differently. Isn't there ample evidence of that even among Protestant denominations who "purely interpret God's Word" but come up with different theology??? This seems to be a common thread among most Protestants. They don't realize that their private interpretations are personal - and MAY not be from the Spirit.

Apparently you did not read what I said - read my lips - there is but one meaning for these keys mentioned by Peter - scripture tells us that they are the keys of knowledge.

Read my lips - I am speaking of JESUS giving keys to Peter, not Keys mentioned by Peter...!

But using ad hominems does not add, but rather subtracts from the credibility of your arguments.

When did I call you a name? If you are going to accuse me of "ad hominems", please provide the evidence. If you are upset that I mentioned your gaff regarding Matthias and your supposed knowledge of Scriptures, then next time, be more careful before you make another proclamation. You should have known better, because you quoted that very same passage to biblecatholic. Don't you read what you quote?

Again, As I said, I could duel with quotes too, and I have gone through so many of these quotes in the past only to find that the context says something else. But I take scripture as my standard, so you will find that the quotes won't gain you any ground with me, unless you are willing to validate your points from scripture.

Please. Show me some of the Church Fathers that deny that Peter was given the keys as a symbol of authority. Show me that understanding from Christianity. Yours is a new invention. The reason why we don't find your point of view in the Fathers' writings is because you would have to mightily twist Scriptures to come up with that line of thought. We read what is there. You come to the Bible believing "x" and "y", and then try to find the verses that prove your point. That is not the correct way to read the Bible. Anyone who is unbiased would understand that Jesus is giving keys of authority to another person, Simon, and calling him "Rock". That is the clear sense of Scriptures. When we look at your arguments that deny the clear sense, we soon find that they are unconvincing and a priori "know" that Peter couldn't have received keys from Christ.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

That is why we need to go to scripture to prove our points, not just make comments as you just did, saying effective;y - "you're wrong" and this establishing yourself as the authority. That is not convincing.

Ditto. Quoting Scriptures ALONE does not prove your point, since interpretation is vital to understanding theology and the concepts that we take from the bible.

If you really believe that, then get into the Word, and let's discuss the context of what scripture says. Why do you not do that? Rather, you just declare that you are right, and use ad hominems by declaring that others who don't agree with you don't know how to use the Bible.I have no intent of wasting my time on refuting ad hominem after ad hominem. I am here to study the Bible.

Thus, quoting Deuteronomy's use of "rock" proves nothing about the rock of Matthew 16. Your self-proclaimed "quoting scriptures" is meaningless unless you can show a connection between the context of Matthew 16 and Deuteronomy.

We find that the context of the Rock throughout scripture points to God, in both the OT and NT as we are told in Corinthians:

1 Cor 10:1-4
10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

I have already showed you the context of Matthew 16 and how it points to Christ as the foundation of the Church, and how that is supportwed in Corinthians also (1 Cor 3;11). I have yet to see you refute what I said other than to proclaim that I am wrong because you say so, and I find that less than convincing and contrary to scripture since scripture is of no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).

So like I said, if you choose that approach, my responses may get short because I see no sense in doing a studying of God's word when you keep pointing focusing on the person rather than getting into the Word. So again, if you find me skipping over comments that you made, go back and see if you validated your point from scripture. If not, you have your answer as to why you got no response.

'nuff said - let's move on.

I have found that quoting Scriptures in of itself does not help these matters, especially when taken out of context. Thus, I ignore your "validation", because it is NOT validated by the Scriptures.

Then prove it, man, prove it. Don't just go telling everyone that they are wrong because you have declared it so.

Where does Jesus say HE is the foundation in Matthew 16??? You are implying that Jesus is speaking to Himself when He says "YOU ARE ROCK". Don't you even realize what you are saying?

This was responded to in the last message. Go back and see what I said.

I am not a protestant. Let's also get off the "labeling" shall we? Deal with the topic.

You are protesting the Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures, so you, by definition, would be a Protestant. But you are correct, we should stick to the topic.

Then I assume that you must not familiar with church history regarding Chrsitians who were neither Catholic nor Protestant, of which there have been many throughout the centuries. For one major example, go do some reading on the earkly history of the Anabaptists.

It is insulting to people to apply labls such as this and claim that they are sometyhing that they are not. But again, I think that we are best to focus on the topic rather than people in any case.

We could quote writers back and forth for months - does not prove anything? Does the one with most writers win? No. I stick with God's word as my standard. My may fail, God won't.

Those writers, as well as myself, ALSO use God's word as the standard. Unfortunately, you don't realize that the bible can be read differently.

Ah, ad hominems once again. No, you are wrong. I do realize that the Bible can be read differently, but I also know that there is only one right understanding and I know that the Bible says that it does not come from men, but from God, so we need to study to see what the Bible says in context, both of the immediate portion of scripture, as well as look at scripture as a whol;e and the character of God as revealed in scripture.

So please get off this kick of arguing that you are right because I don't know what I am talking about - that is the definition of the logic fallacy known as an ad hominem.

The other reason, as I said before, and you appartenly missed, is that I have been through most if not all these quotes from time to time and have established that most of not all, if taken in context of the where they were written and/or the xontext of what the writer said in his other works does not agree with your position.

But if we argued these writers, all we would learn is what the writer's believed, ultimately, and what any man believes does not define doctrine. Only the word of God does. So let's go straight to the core of the issue.

Isn't there ample evidence of that even among Protestant denominations who "purely interpret God's Word" but come up with different theology??? This seems to be a common thread among most Protestants. They don't realize that their private interpretations are personal - and MAY not be from the Spirit.

I have issues with many doctrines taught by protestant denomination, just as I have issues with doctrines taught by Catholic denominations. But are we here to debate denominational doctrines or the word of God? I am here to study the word of God - what are you here for?

Apparently you did not read what I said - read my lips - there is but one meaning for these keys mentioned by Peter - scripture tells us that they are the keys of knowledge.

Read my lips - I am speaking of JESUS giving keys to Peter, not Keys mentioned by Peter...!

First, you have yet to establish that any keys were given solely to Peter. Don't try to use something as a premise until you have established it to the satisfaction of both sides in a debate.

But using ad hominems does not add, but rather subtracts from the credibility of your arguments.

When did I call you a name?

I don't know if you did. I sdaid that you used ad hominems. Look it up - it is not restricted to name-calling.

If you are going to accuse me of "ad hominems", please provide the evidence. If you are upset that I mentioned your gaff regarding Matthias and your supposed knowledge of Scriptures, then next time, be more careful before you make another proclamation.

If you are going to accuse me of a "gaff", please provide the evidence, and next time, be more careful before making a proclamation.

Now, did you note that because you chose to focus on me, and to simply declare me wrong on yoru own authority, we got nowhere in this last exchnage. I do not object to be challenged when we get into God's word - in fact I appreciate it. On the other hand, I do not know why some people choose to go for their oppoents jugular when their views are likewise challenged. It makes your position look weak, because it makes it appear that you are unable to refute what i say, and so you resort to ad hominems and demeaning comments and labels.

My challenge to you is this - let's get into God's word, using God's word to study this point, and let's not even mention each other, unless it is to address the person to identify who the message is in response to. How about it, can you agree to those terms?

 

[francisdesales]

If you really believe that, then get into the Word, and let's discuss the context of what scripture says. Why do you not do that? Rather, you just declare that you are right, and use ad hominems by declaring that others who don't agree with you don't know how to use the Bible.

Back at you, brother. You throw Scripture verses at me that have absolutely no parallelism to Matthew 16 and complain that I do not follow your rules of Scripture interpretation? Then, when I give you evidence from Scriptures, you either ignore it or explain it away as not pertinent. You are accusing ME of the very same thing you are doing, so you can stop the self-righteous harangue.

As I have said before, quoting Scriptures is inconsequential if you try to apply them without considering the context. Again and again, I have asked "what does Deuteronomy's "rock" have to do with Matthew's "rock"? What has been your response?

"yes it is"...? "well everywhere else rock = God"? We'll get to that Bible error in a minute.

We find that the context of the Rock throughout scripture points to God, in both the OT and NT as we are told in Corinthians:

Oh, another proclamation. Well, I am Catholic, and you know, we don't know much about the Bible... :wink:

You apparently haven't read Isaiah 51:1-2. Read it for yourself. I find it quite ironic that Abraham is considered a rock - and his name was changed BY GOD, just like Simon Peter. They shared the very same ministry - to be father of God's people. That is obvious in the context of Isaiah, and in Gospels, we see Peter is ALSO considered the leader of God's people. Wow. A coincidence? Hardly. Thus, we call the successor of Peter "Papa", or Pope. I know this doesn't sit well with you, but that is a valid interpretation of Scriptures, held 1500 years before Protestants came along and challenged the idea in their efforts to unknowingly mimic Numbers 16.

I believe your problem is that you can't seem to understand that the writers of Scriptures mix metaphors. Thus, you keep dragging metaphors outside of Matthew 16 into the context when it is OBVIOUS that Simon is not God, and yet, is called "rock"!

For example, the Apostles/believers are seen as the foundation (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), the builders (1 Cor 3:10), the stones (lithos - 1 Pet 2:5), the building (1 Cor 3:9) and the Temple (Eph 2:21).

Jesus is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), the builder (Mt 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11) and the Temple itself (Rev 21:22).

Thus, it is a terrible attempt to confine Jesus OR the apostle/believer to an "either/or" false dichotomy. Don't you realize we are in Christ, and that being part of the Body, these metaphors can ALSO apply to us? Thus, the whole point of this topic, Christ is the Rock, is a poor attempt to destroy the Christian faith, due to poor bible knowledge and inability to realize that the Scriptures mixes their metaphors. I have said it again and again. I have even tried to allow you to see the shoe on the other foot by refering to a verse that YOU would CERTAINLY see a meaning that differs from the normally accepted definition of the word "flesh" in John 6. But because I am Catholic, I guess I am not allowed the same perogatives as you, since you read the Scriptures so purely. :-?

If you can't understand this by now, then only prayer can help you, because you are blocking God's truth out willfully.

I have already showed you the context of Matthew 16 and how it points to Christ as the foundation of the Church

GAG! : :

WHEN OH WHEN have you done that? I have asked you THREE times where Matthew says anything about Jesus being the FOUNDATION. All you do is repeat the same old mantra....

SHOW ME where it says that in Matthew 16. And HERE is where we prove that you think when Jesus says "you", He is refering to Himself!!!

If you are going to accuse me of a "gaff", please provide the evidence, and next time, be more careful before making a proclamation.

Oh how soon you forget... Don't you remember what you said, that God had no interest in choosing Matthais as a successor and apostle to replace Judas? Here it is, another of your Bible proclamations:

First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas. written by Toms777 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:36 pm.

Even though I am an illiterate Catholic who barely knows what a bible looks like, I knew THAT was wrong, and provided you with the verses that backed it up - oh, wait, I forgot, I NEVER back up my point from Scriptures, according to you...

Well, just the same, here is what I wrote back on Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:10 pm (notice, I haven't edited that, so you can't make some claim that I did it after today, and less than an hour later):

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

Well, so much for that. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you decide to stir the pot, continuing with your "I'm being attacked" line of thought. Now, you force me to make you look foolish when you should have just admitted your mistake and moved on.

OK, let's cut to the chase...

If you REALLY want to get to the truth, let's do this. Answer my questions.

1. Show me where Jesus says HE is the Foundation or the Rock in Matthew 16.
2. Prove to me that the keys are knowledge in Matthew 16.
3. PROVE to me that the Aramaic word Kephas means little stone...

Utilize Matthew 16, don't tell me "rock is always God", when it is not.

Let's look at Matthew 16. Prove to me that the Catholic understanding is wrong.

If my telling you that you are wrong and showing the Scriptures to back it up (e.g. Acts 1:23-24 or Is 51:1-2) hurts your feelings and I'll be accused of ad hominem ad nauseum, now would be the time to save face and exit stage left.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

Back at you, brother. You throw Scripture verses at me that have absolutely no parallelism to Matthew 16 and complain that I do not follow your rules of Scripture interpretation?

Look, I am not demanding nor have I stated rules of interpretation. I am just trying to get your to respectfully discuss the Bible and to validate your points from the Bible. If you are unwilling to do so, just say so, and stop wasting your time and mine.

Then, when I give you evidence from Scriptures, you either ignore it or explain it away as not pertinent. You are accusing ME of the very same thing you are doing, so you can stop the self-righteous harangue.

Not true. I dealt with each example that you gave from scripture, in most cases refuting your claims by going to scripture, typically looking at the context. You then came back and told me that i was wrong because you said so, in most cases, or told me that i was wrong because of ad hominem arguments.

[quote:06b8b]As I have said before, quoting Scriptures is inconsequential if you try to apply them without considering the context. Again and again, I have asked "what does Deuteronomy's "rock" have to do with Matthew's "rock"? What has been your response?

"yes it is"...? "well everywhere else rock = God"? We'll get to that Bible error in a minute.[/quote:06b8b]

See this is what I mean. Rather than dealing with what I do say, you "quote" me by saying something that I NEVER said. Then you call it an error using the logic fallacy of a strawman argument.

That is blatantly dishonest, and you did it here, and you did it elsewhere claiming that i was saying that Jesus talked to himself. Why would you be unwilling to deal honestly with my comments?

We find that the context of the Rock throughout scripture points to God, in both the OT and NT as we are told in Corinthians:

Oh, another proclamation. Well, I am Catholic, and you know, we don't know much about the Bible... :wink:

I never said that also. Note that you labeled me, and to date I have said nothing about your affiliation or used that in any way to deal with the issue. the reason? I don't think that it has anything to do with the comment.

Once again you deal with me dishonestly by claiming that i said something that I never said.

You apparently haven't read Isaiah 51:1-2. Read it for yourself. I find it quite ironic that Abraham is considered a rock - and his name was changed BY GOD, just like Simon Peter.

That is the one and only exception in scripture and note that we can see that from the context. That is what I am trying to get you to look at - the context. But you keep wanting to use ad hominems.

Hardly. Thus, we call the successor of Peter "Papa", or Pope. I know this doesn't sit well with you, but that is a valid interpretation of Scriptures, held 1500 years before Protestants came along and challenged the idea in their efforts to unknowingly mimic Numbers 16.

You can call it what you want - it does not make it true. This is the problem with jumping to conclusions before you have validated the premises of your arguments.

For example, the Apostles/believers are seen as the foundation (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), the builders (1 Cor 3:10), the stones (lithos - 1 Pet 2:5), the building (1 Cor 3:9) and the Temple (Eph 2:21).

Let's consider this once again - please, this time, read what I say:

Eph 2:14-22
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.

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 context here is Jesus Christ, who He is and what He did. Then we get into Eph 2:20 in the light of the context of the focus on Christ. Note the word "therefore" - that means that what follows is a conclusion to that which comes before. If the topic and the focus is Christ, then we know that Eph 2:19-22 is summarizing / concluding what came prior to this.

Now, since we already know that there can be no other foundation than Christ (1 Cor 3;11), we know that the Apostles and Prophets are not the foundation. Further, the wording does not agree with that. It does not say that they are the foundation, as you claim, but it refers to the foundation OF the Apostles and Prophets. Now, if I was building a house, I might build it on XYZ's foundation. That does not mean that XYZ laid down and I built the house on him, but rather, he was a key player involved in building that foundation.

To claim that this passage is about the Apostles and prophets would be to suggest that the though the passage is about Christ, the conclusion / summary is about the Apostles and Prophets, which does not make logical or literary sense.

Rev 21:14-16
14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall.
NKJV

I am surprised that you would even use this one. This is talking about the future foundation of the New Jerusalem,a nd simply says that the names of the Apostles are in the foundation. Note that another examples as to why this is not related to Eph 2 is that we see nothing about the Prophets here. lastly, this is a problem for those who hold to apostolic succession, since there are only 12 apostles.

1 Cor 3:7-9
8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building.
NKJV

The Apostles, Prophets and all of us are fellow workers.

1 Peter 2:4-5

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.
NKJV

BINGO! Now you are getting it. We are the stones, Jesus is the Rock. And note - all who are saved are priests - there is no separate priesthood. Jesus Christ is our one and only High priest (Heb 3:1)

Jesus is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), the builder (Mt 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11) and the Temple itself (Rev 21:22).

I agree with these.

Thus, it is a terrible attempt to confine Jesus OR the apostle/believer to an "either/or" false dichotomy.

What "false dichotomy". If you want to argu against something that I have said - please quote me. After a couple of the comments that you made earlier twisting what i said, I don't want you to be dealing with yet another strawman argument.

Don't you realize we are in Christ, and that being part of the Body, these metaphors can ALSO apply to us?

Again, what are you arguing about here?

Thus, the whole point of this topic, Christ is the Rock, is a poor attempt to destroy the Christian faith, due to poor bible knowledge and inability to realize that the Scriptures mixes their metaphors.

What? By accepting what scripture says when it calls Jesus the Rock?

I have said it again and again. I have even tried to allow you to see the shoe on the other foot by refering to a verse that YOU would CERTAINLY see a meaning that differs from the normally accepted definition of the word "flesh" in John 6.

Jesus addresses that point specifically in John 6. I thinking that you are getting off topic here.

But because I am Catholic, I guess I am not allowed the same perogatives as you, since you read the Scriptures so purely. :-?

Again, unlike you, I have yet to even comment on your religious affiliation, because I do not see as relevant. Please let's keep each others church out of the question. It has no bearing upon what scripture says.

If you can't understand this by now, then only prayer can help you, because you are blocking God's truth out willfully.

Could not resist another ad hominem, eh?

If my telling you that you are wrong and showing the Scriptures to back it up (e.g. Acts 1:23-24 or Is 51:1-2) hurts your feelings and I'll be accused of ad hominem ad nauseum, now would be the time to save face and exit stage left.

I left and addressed some of your abusive comments in above, but to be honest, that approach is tiresome. It is not a matter of anyone's feelings being hurt, but are you not capable to defending your position without attacking your opponent? Is your position so weak that you cannot defend it based upon the facts?

To be honest, there is a limit as to how long I will tolerate your abusive approach in dealing with opponents. Please also consider that there are rules on the board that deal with this:

----------
5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

7 - Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.
----------

Can we agree to approach the topic using this respectful approach? If not, then perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Unless both of us are interested in studying scripture respectfully, I cannot see any chance that we are going to achieve anything.

 

[francisdesales]

Can we agree to approach the topic using this respectful approach? If not, then perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Unless both of us are interested in studying scripture respectfully, I cannot see any chance that we are going to achieve anything.

First of all, let's clear the air. You seem to be confused on an "ad hominem" argument. It is a logical fallacy ONLY when it cannot be proven or is inconsequential to an argument. If I were to say, "you are fat so you don't know anything about the bible, that would be an ad hominem" argument, a logical fallacy because being fat has nothing to do with bible knowledge. Now, if we are speaking about physical fitness, and I notice that you are fat and mention that as evidence in an argument that you are out of shape, that is NOT an "ad hominem" argument. It is statement of fact. The same applies here. I have said your Bible knowledge is lacking, at least less than you think it is. Normally, this would be an ad hominem attack IF it had nothing to do with the topic OR you hadn't proven that yet.

However, Bible interpretation is dependent upon knowledge of the Bible. We are speaking about the Bible, are we not? Thus, the topic is pertinent, ESPECIALLY if you have been PROVEN WRONG TWICE in Acts 1:23-24 AND Isaiah 51:1-2. As such, your "argument from authority" argument fails. I have every right to point this out and it is not a logical fallacy to do so. Your argument from authority - that you can personally intepret Scriptures based on the Holy Spirit moving you to know the Bible - is thus defunct based on the evidence that I have provided. As a result, how am I to believe that YOU can reliably interpret the Bible based on the errors I have already mentioned?

So please drop the "ad hominem" charges unless you can show that I have said something unfounded against you. It is tiring.

Now, back to these posts.

You last post was quite long, and sadly, did not address anything that I wrote in my last paragraph. If you want to prove your point that the Catholic Church is wrong about Matthew 16, why have you ignored my last appeal to you? Why have you taken this so far off topic? My point of bringing up the various metaphors of Christ and the apostles/believers was merely illustrative of the FACT that the Bible uses the same word to refer to BOTH Christ AND the Apostle/believer... I suppose that STILL hasn't registered yet with you. I suppose YOU are able to mix metaphors effectively when it serves your purpose, such as John 6, but suddenly, you appear to hit a mind block when we discuss a doctrine that you dislike, namely, that "rock" in Matthew 16 MUST refer to God and ONLY God. Thus, you try to explain away what the plain sense of the Scriptures say with such silliness that Jesus was talking to Himself or "Peter" means little stone.

---------
Here it is, one more time. If you continue with driving in circles and avoiding these questions, I suppose you are wasting our time. Now would be the time to save face and exit if you cannot answer these questions.

If you REALLY want to get to the truth, let's do this. Answer my questions.

1. Show me where Jesus says HE is the Foundation or the Rock in Matthew 16.
2. Prove to me that the keys are knowledge in Matthew 16.
3. PROVE to me that the Aramaic word Kephas means little stone...

Utilize Matthew 16, don't tell me "rock is always God", when it is not.

Let's look at Matthew 16. Prove to me that the Catholic understanding is wrong. NOT just that it is an alternative interpretation, but it is an UNTENABLE one.

Regards

 

[Toms777]

First of all, let's clear the air. You seem to be confused on an "ad hominem" argument. It is a logical fallacy ONLY when it cannot be proven or is inconsequential to an argument.

It is any argument that brings any aspect of your oppoent into the argument. For example, when you say that you are wrong because you are a protestant. That is a ad hominem. Because whether I am a protestant or not (and I am not) would not in any way impact whether what I say is or is not true.

Likewise, if you accuse me of lacking knowledge in Aramaic and therefore I am wrong, that is also a logic fallacy because whether or not I know Aramaic would not make the argument wrong. You need to prove your point by dealing with the issue, not by bring what you think about me into the picture. Bottom line, if I never existed, whether Christ is the Rock would not chnage therefore any time that you bring me into the argument, it is an ad hominem.

Stick to the topic.

However, Bible interpretation is dependent upon knowledge of the Bible. We are speaking about the Bible, are we not?

Yes, and I you will note that despite my misgivings about your knowledge of the Bible and Biblical interpretation, I have been able to defend my position by going to the Bible. You resorted to going at me. Now if you feel that my Bible knowledge is weak, making demeaning comments about me does not prove it. What will prove it is getting into the word. When I see someone presenting a Bible based argument and the second person attack the first, it appears to me that the second one finds himself incapable of addressing the points raised. And that has been my experience - when a person has run out of ways to defend their position, they attack the person.

Thus, the topic is pertinent, ESPECIALLY if you have been PROVEN WRONG TWICE in Acts 1:23-24 AND Isaiah 51:1-2.

That is the problem.You seem to think that you are the judge. You think that when we both put forward arguments, you then judge who is right, and hey, oddly you find in favour of yourself. Maybe you should come down off your high horse and realize that you can be wrong.

Now, with respect to these points, to date I have not seen you prove anything, and indeed after I have refute you with direct quotes from the Bible that specifically and directly contradict your position, you simply ignore them and make the same statement over again. Further, in an effort to bolster your "rightness", you make up quotes and claim that is what I have said. If a person has to go to that lengths, it makes their position appear very weak indeed.

Your argument from authority - that you can personally intepret Scriptures based on the Holy Spirit moving you to know the Bible - is thus defunct based on the evidence that I have provided.

See - this is what I mean. I NEVER put forward such an argument. You are lying about what I said. Why is the truth not adequate?

As a result, how am I to believe that YOU can reliably interpret the Bible based on the errors I have already mentioned?

And why should I believe your interpretation when you simply declare that you are right, no matter what?

So please drop the "ad hominem" charges unless you can show that I have said something unfounded against you. It is tiring.

When you drop the ad hominems, I will do so. If you find yourself unable to discuss without such abuse, then we are unlikely to get anywhere.

You last post was quite long, and sadly, did not address anything that I wrote in my last paragraph.

Again, how are we going to get anywhere if you won't read my posts. It was long trying to deal with your behaviour in your previous post, just as this one likewise is long for the same reason. Why should I waste my time on yours if you won't read and respond to what I said in mine?

Go back and read it and respond to what I said if you want to continue.

 

[biblecatholic]

Tom777,

I wanted to jump in just for a second.... Both you and francis are using the bible and the biblical interpretation of your tradition..... This is the big problem that developed when problems arose in the life of the bride and then people decided to make Christs bride into a harem by divorcing the church. Now I know that there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. We in our broken humanity have allowed the devil to divide us. Christ specifically calls us to be one as He and the Father are one, and they are totally of one mind and heart and body.

Eph 4:3-6 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you[a] all

1 Cor 1:10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


I believe this also proves that Jesus at the very least wanted a representative head of His Kingdom(of apostles(bishops) and a head of the house hold(apostle chosen to lead)) in order to not have division

 

[francisdesales]

Stick to the topic.

If only you hadn't spent all that time and effort writing to me about what you think is an ad hominem argument and listen to your pearl of wisdom above, we might get somewhere. But plainly, all you want to do is side-track this conversation. I have plainly shown you wrong twice and you are still in denial. So what, move on. However, I am not here to argue about arguing. If this is your face-saving option, then I give you leave of this discussion.

If you want to go back to showing me how the Catholic Church is wrong, then answer my three questions noted above. Otherwise, you are wasting our time.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I must admit, I have never met a charecter in denial like youself. You amaze me! Rather than just dropping it, you are STILL claiming that I have not proven anything??? Incredible. Let's analyze this, since you are now dragging my name through the dirt with your false accusations...

I wrote:

Thus, the topic is pertinent, ESPECIALLY if you have been PROVEN WRONG TWICE in Acts 1:23-24 AND Isaiah 51:1-2.

You had the audacity to respond with the following in your most recent post:

Now, with respect to these points, to date I have not seen you prove anything, and indeed after I have refute you with direct quotes from the Bible that specifically and directly contradict your position, you simply ignore them and make the same statement over again. Further, in an effort to bolster your "rightness", you make up quotes and claim that is what I have said. If a person has to go to that lengths, it makes their position appear very weak indeed.
.

You GOT to be kidding. Or you simply don't read the posts... I will quote a quote from you. ANYONE can go back and see our responses and find out that you are clearly delusional to make such accusations...

I have told you THREE TIMES, quoting Scriptures TWICE already, and refering to it several other times. Yet, I have still not given you evidence????

Let's go through the posts AGAIN...

Toms777 wrote:

If you are going to accuse me of a "gaff", please provide the evidence, and next time, be more careful before making a proclamation.

I responded Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:39 pm this way:

Oh how soon you forget... Don't you remember what you said, that God had no interest in choosing Matthais as a successor and apostle to replace Judas? Here it is, another of your Bible proclamations:

"First of all, there is no evidence that god endorsed Matthias the replacement for Judas". written by Toms777 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:36 pm.

I then continue by REPOSTING what I wrote back on Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:10 pm


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 [/color]Acts 1:23-24

Kind words cannot explain the utter ridiculousness of your suggestion...

WHO could NOT see that they were wrong regarding God had not endorsed Matthias as a replacement for Judas. THE WORDS are right there! And yet, you STILL are looking for evidence? I have told you enough times, as ANYONE can go back and see. :o :o

The same is true regarding your comments on "when Rock is spoken of in Scriptures, it always refers to God". I post Isaiah 51:1-2, refering to it SEVERAL times, which declares that ABRAHAM is a rock. But that goes in one ear and out the other on that side, apparently.

I can see by this conversation that you have no intent on "learning what the Word" says. You already have made up your mind what the Bible says, and even when proven dead wrong, you are in total denial. You aren't concerned with truth, but with brow-beating another Christian. Perhaps when you apologize for your unfair accusations, we can continue in good faith to get to the bottom of Matthew 16. But until that time, you are merely wasting my time.

Your decision.

 

[Toms777]

Tom777,

I wanted to jump in just for a second.... Both you and francis are using the bible and the biblical interpretation of your tradition.....

If he would stick to the Bible, that would be fine. My objection is the ad hominems. Second, I am not using a Biblical interpretation of my tradition. You don't even know what my "tradition" is.

This is the big problem that developed when problems arose in the life of the bride and then people decided to make Christs bride into a harem by divorcing the church.

The church is the body of Christ. One can only divorce the church by ceasing to be a Christian. The problem here arises when people mistake their denomination for the body of Christ. There are times when organization division is essential and right.

1 Cor 11:18-19
hen you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
NKJV

Christ specifically calls us to be one as He and the Father are one, and they are totally of one mind and heart and body.

John 17:20-23
20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:
NKJV

Note that this is a prayer to God. We as humans do not answer prayer. God the father answered this prayer by giving all believers the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is not a call for us to be in organizational or denominational unity - that would be to suggest that Jesus was praying to us, which would be blasphemy.

 

[Toms777]

Francis,

Since it is clear that you do not wish or are unable to carry on a civil and honest discussion, Let's leave it there. You know that I addressed each of those points and time and again after I address your points, you ignored what I said, and then went on to say the same thing again, or made up things that you claimed that i said. Therefore to claims that there is a "gaff" where it is in fact something that you have tajen out of context (rather than addressing the point that I raised in response), and claiming to have addressed something by ignoring what I said, is outright dishonest.

When and if you feel that you can be civil and honest with me, I will be more than willing to pick it up again.

Tom

 

[Heidi]

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 Rockâ€Â, the chief cornerstone upon which the church is built.

Actually, the rock is the the rock on which they were standing at Caesarea Philipi. That rock was where the pagans worshiped their gods which were carved into the rock. Ceasarea Philipi was the traditional pagan site for idol worship.

What Jesus meant was that he was now offering salvation to the Gentiles by conquering even the pagan gods the epitome of which, was Caesarea Philipi.

 

[cyberjosh]

Actually, the rock is the the rock on which they were standing at Caesarea Philipi. That rock was where the pagans worshiped their gods which were carved into the rock. Ceasarea Philipi was the traditional pagan site for idol worship.

What Jesus meant was that he was now offering salvation to the Gentiles by conquering even the pagan gods the epitome of which, was Caesarea Philipi.

Are you saying that Jesus was in Caesarea Philipi when he said that, and that he wasn't refering to either Peter or Himself? I would appreciate a clarification.

Thanks.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[aj830]

Actually, the rock is the the rock on which they were standing at Caesarea Philipi. That rock was where the pagans worshiped their gods which were carved into the rock. Ceasarea Philipi was the traditional pagan site for idol worship.

What Jesus meant was that he was now offering salvation to the Gentiles by conquering even the pagan gods the epitome of which, was Caesarea Philipi.

So that is why Simon is renamed the Rock?

 

[francisdesales]

What Jesus meant was that he was now offering salvation to the Gentiles by conquering even the pagan gods the epitome of which, was Caesarea Philipi.

I don't think so, Heidi. Jesus taught that He came for the Jews until the very end of His ministry, the Last Supper, I believe, when He mentions that He will die for the sake of ALL men. At the time of Matthew 16, He hadn't made any suggestions that He was to "conquer the pagan gods". He specifically told His disciples to go ONLY to the Jews. He told the woman of Tyre that He came ONLY for the Jews...

The clear meaning of Matthew 16 is that Simon is the Rock, because Paul calls Simon "Kephas", which means rock. If you would like, I can post a number of PROTESTANT exegesis that states this. THEY claim that it is only bias that "forces" someone to think that Peter is NOT the Rock in Matthew 16. Thus, it is not only Catholics who make this claim.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

When and if you feel that you can be civil and honest with me, I will be more than willing to pick it up again.

Tom

That's OK. Say what you want. Anyone reading this thread will know that you have a hard time admitting you are wrong, and rather than admitting it, would prefer to cry "ad hominem" when told you are wrong. It's a relatively common ploy used when one bites off more than they can chew. No hard feelings...

Regards

 

[Toms777]

Francis,

When and if you feel that you can be civil and honest with me, I will be more than willing to pick it up again.

Tom

That's OK. Say what you want. Anyone reading this thread will know that you have a hard time admitting you are wrong, and rather than admitting it, would prefer to cry "ad hominem" when told you are wrong. It's a relatively common ploy used when one bites off more than they can chew. No hard feelings...

Regards

Francis,

I have no problem admitting that I am wrong when the evidence is provided. But you slipped out a bit of truth in this post - you simply "told" me that i was wrong, and did so in a manner which attempted to demean me in the process, while ignoring the scriptural evidence that i presented which refuted your points.

If you think that makes you look good, I feel sorry for you.

Tom

 

[Toms777]

In an effort once again to show what scripture says about the translation of Cephas:

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

I'll take the word of God over the word of any man any day!