The Rock that Jesus Builds his Church is not Peter

[Solo]

The Rock that Jesus said that he would build his Church on is who or what?
It is not Peter, but it was common knowledge at the time of whom the Rock was. Keep in mind that the name that Jesus uses for Peter in the following verse is tranliterated Petros, a masculine noun, while the word that Jesus uses for rock is transliterated petra, a feminine noun.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Matthew 16:15-20

 

[fiat]

Aramaic was the language spoken by Christ. Four times in Galatians and once in Corinthians we see the Aramaic form of Simon's new name--Kepha (or Kephas in the Hellenistic form) meaning "rock." Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. The Greek word petra is feminine (as you pointed out) and at the time, the gospel writer, could not use it for Simon's new name. Instead he used Petros. Centuries prior to Christ, petra and petros had distinct meanings in the Attic Greek dialect, but by the time of Christ koine Greek was used and the two words were synonymous.

There is much more on this topic, but I'm supposed to be analyzing Kafka's Metamorphosis right now! oy! :o oh, here's my source http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

[Solo]

Aramaic was the language spoken by Christ. Four times in Galatians and once in Corinthians we see the Aramaic form of Simon's new name--Kepha (or Kephas in the Hellenistic form) meaning "rock." Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. The Greek word petra is feminine (as you pointed out) and at the time, the gospel writer, could not use it for Simon's new name. Instead he used Petros. Centuries prior to Christ, petra and petros had distinct meanings in the Attic Greek dialect, but by the time of Christ koine Greek was used and the two words were synonymous.

There is much more on this topic, but I'm supposed to be analyzing Kafka's Metamorphosis right now! oy! :o oh, here's my source http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Peter is not the rock that Jesus said that he would build his Church on, but I take it from your post that you assume that Peter is the rock that Jesus was speaking of. Perhaps you have another guess.

Did Jesus speak Hebrew? Did Jesus speak Greek? Did Matthew write his gospel in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew? What part of the writing of the gospel of Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Cure of Ars]

The following quotations are from Protestant Bible scholars...

William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.†Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.†Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,†Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone†and “rock†respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha†and “on this kephaâ€Â), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.†The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock†(Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock†to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,†etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.†The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.†. . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierreâ€Â; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.†(Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock†Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.†As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,†Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter†(Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,†parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,†as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.†The expression “this rock†almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ†in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock†(petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock†as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,†The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,†the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock†on which God will build the new community. (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,†Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)

http://catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

 

[Solo]

The following quotations are from Protestant Bible scholars...

William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.†Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.†Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,†Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone†and “rock†respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha†and “on this kephaâ€Â), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.†The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock†(Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock†to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,†etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.†The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.†. . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierreâ€Â; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.†(Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock†Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.†As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,†Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter†(Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,†parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,†as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.†The expression “this rock†almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ†in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock†(petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock†as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,†The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,†the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock†on which God will build the new community. (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,†Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)

http://catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

And YOUR opinion on who or what the rock is that Jesus said that he would build his Church on?

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I am unsure why it matters if Jesus chose to make Peter the leader of the early Church or not. What we need to come to terms with is that Jesus is the Savior and we need to come to Him alone for salvation.

It bothers me when incidentals cause division.

 

[Solo]

I am unsure why it matters if Jesus chose to make Peter the leader of the early Church or not. What we need to come to terms with is that Jesus is the Savior and we need to come to Him alone for salvation.

It bothers me when incidentals cause division.

Divisions are caused by false doctrines and false brethren. The rock that Jesus was speaking of was not questioned by the disciples or the early Church because they knew full well who the Rock was. Peter was one apostle out of twelve who taught the early Church, but his direction was to teach the Jews, while Paul was chosen to teach the Gentiles. The Roman Catholic teachings are false, and they have infiltrated other groups of believers with an ecumenical poison that sounds sweet to the ears but is an antiChrist ploy to water down the doctrines of the Word of God.

Who is the Rock that Jesus spoke of?

 

[Solo]

In Matthew 16 it is recorded that Jesus is asking the disciples who the men say that the son of man is. Jesus then asked who the disciples say that he is. Simon Peter answered and said that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus told Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal this truth to him, but that God the Father in heaven did. Jesus said in response to Peter's correct answer that upon this Rock he would build his Church. Upon Peter and Peter alone Jesus would build his Church? No, upon the knowledge that God the Father would reveal the truth to disciples to follow. All believers would have the truth revealed to them as God the Father draws them by the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ his son.

God almighty, Father, Son, and Spirit is the Rock on which Jesus will build his Church. God's Word plainly shows who the Rock is.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4

3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Deuteronomy 32:3-4

15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. 16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. 18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. Deuteronomy 32:15-18

There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
1 Samuel 2:2

And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 2 Samuel 22:2

For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? 2 Samuel 22:32

The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation. 2 Samuel 22:47

The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalm 18:2

For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? Psalm 18:31

The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.
Psalm 18:46

Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit. Psalm 28:1

Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me. Psalm 31:2

For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:3

He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings. Psalm 40:2

I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? Psalm 42:9

From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I. Psalm 61:2

He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. Psalm 62:2

He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. Psalm 62:6

In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.
Psalm 62:7

Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress. Psalm 71:3

And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35

He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Psalm 89:26

To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Psalm 92:15

But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. Psalm 94:22

O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
Psalm 95:1

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Matthew 7:24

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. Matthew 7:25

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 9:33

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 1 Peter 2:8

 

[stray bullet]

Let's analyze the verses, shall we?

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

"And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets."

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?" - Matthew 16:13-15

It seems Jesus allowed everyone to answer his question and got a series of different answers from his disciples.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." - Matthew 16:16

Simon is the ONLY one that answers. His answer is profound and is the basis of our faith. This is Christianity defined. It was God speaking through Peter and only Peter.

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 16:17

This shows that God can reveal through men truths. In the same way, the successor of Peter does the same thing today.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18

In verse 17, he called him Simon, his original name. What's interesting is that in the next verse, He called him by his new name, which Jesus gave Him, which means rock. The contrast reveals why Jesus named him Peter, because he is the rock of the Church.
"That thou art Peter" makes absolutely no sense in the context suggested by others, that it refers to something other than Peter. Why did Jesus tell Peter he was Peter? Did he forget his name? Was he unaware that he was Peter?
No, it makes no sense unless Jesus was basically tell him, Simon, you are (Peter) rock and on this rock I will build my Church.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19

This only further adds that he is talking to Peter. He said I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven... wouldn't Jesus have the keys? Why give them to a mere mortal?
It is because Christ is in Heaven. Peter thus holds the keys to Heaven from the side of Earth. Now who has the keys to Heaven, clearly Peter is dead by now. The keys have gone to his successors.

The man who has the Keys to Heaven right now is Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Solo]

Let's analyze the verses, shall we?

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

"And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets."

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?" - Matthew 16:13-15

It seems Jesus allowed everyone to answer his question and got a series of different answers from his disciples.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." - Matthew 16:16

Simon is the ONLY one that answers. His answer is profound and is the basis of our faith. This is Christianity defined. It was God speaking through Peter and only Peter.

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 16:17

This shows that God can reveal through men truths. In the same way, the successor of Peter does the same thing today.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18

In verse 17, he called him Simon, his original name. What's interesting is that in the next verse, He called him by his new name, which Jesus gave Him, which means rock. The contrast reveals why Jesus named him Peter, because he is the rock of the Church.
"That thou art Peter" makes absolutely no sense in the context suggested by others, that it refers to something other than Peter. Why did Jesus tell Peter he was Peter? Did he forget his name? Was he unaware that he was Peter?
No, it makes no sense unless Jesus was basically tell him, Simon, you are (Peter) rock and on this rock I will build my Church.

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19

This only further adds that he is talking to Peter. He said I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven... wouldn't Jesus have the keys? Why give them to a mere mortal?
It is because Christ is in Heaven. Peter thus holds the keys to Heaven from the side of Earth. Now who has the keys to Heaven, clearly Peter is dead by now. The keys have gone to his successors.

The man who has the Keys to Heaven right now is Pope Benedict XVI.

Hey, ole Benedict may promote you to head cardinal or something for dancing to the party line. It takes quite a feller to ignore all of the scripture that calls God the Rock. I suspect you feel more secure doing the RCC thing as opposed to the Kingdom of heaven thing. Good luck. If we don't meet in the Kingdom, I will assume that you hollered that I was correct in my understanding of the scriptures and that you were dead wrong.

 

[stray bullet]

Hey, ole Benedict may promote you to head cardinal or something for dancing to the party line. It takes quite a feller to ignore all of the scripture that calls God the Rock. I suspect you feel more secure doing the RCC thing as opposed to the Kingdom of heaven thing. Good luck. If we don't meet in the Kingdom, I will assume that you hollered that I was correct in my understanding of the scriptures and that you were dead wrong.

I'm not dancing any party line, I'm only telling what is true because of my love of Christ. There is lots of use of the word "rock" in the bible. We still can not deny that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter and the only explanation in the bible for it is in Matthew 16. Did he rename any other apostles? Why does the relationship between Christ and Peter seem more emphasized throughout the bible? Why was Christ so hard on him at times, harder than with the other apostles?

 

[Solo]

Hey, ole Benedict may promote you to head cardinal or something for dancing to the party line. It takes quite a feller to ignore all of the scripture that calls God the Rock. I suspect you feel more secure doing the RCC thing as opposed to the Kingdom of heaven thing. Good luck. If we don't meet in the Kingdom, I will assume that you hollered that I was correct in my understanding of the scriptures and that you were dead wrong.

I'm not dancing any party line, I'm only telling what is true because of my love of Christ. There is lots of use of the word "rock" in the bible. We still can not deny that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter and the only explanation in the bible for it is in Matthew 16. Did he rename any other apostles? Why does the relationship between Christ and Peter seem more emphasized throughout the bible? Why was Christ so hard on him at times, harder than with the other apostles?

Why did Paul write more books in the Bible? Why did Paul have to correct Peter in his error in doctrine? Why did the Roman church begin the papacy in 610 AD? Why wasn't Peter ever in Rome? Why was John called the disciple that Jesus loved and not Peter? Why did John write five books of the Bible and Peter only wrote two? Why are all twelve apostle's names written in the New Jerusalem instead of just Peter's? Why aren't the popes names written in New Jerusalem? If you love Christ, why don't you follow him and his Word instead of the lies and heresies of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[stray bullet]

Why did Paul write more books in the Bible?

Because that's what Paul's job was. Peter was the head of the Church, busy in those regards.

Why did Paul have to correct Peter in his error in doctrine?

Paul never corrected Peter on doctrine.

Why did the Roman church begin the papacy in 610 AD?

The papacy began with Peter. Linus was his successor.

Why wasn't Peter ever in Rome?

Of course Peter was in Rome, he newas crucified in what is now Saint Peter's Square.

Why was John called the disciple that Jesus loved and not Peter? Why did John write five books of the Bible and Peter only wrote two?

I dunno, why did Mark write less? Why did Andrew write less? Because they were Bishops and Patriarches, not writers.

Why are all twelve apostle's names written in the New Jerusalem instead of just Peter's?

Because Peter was one of twelve apostles.

If you love Christ, why don't you follow him and his Word instead of the lies and heresies of the Roman Catholic Church?

It is because of my love for Christ that I follow Him and His Word, which includes His Church and the scripture that put Peter as the head of His Church.

Why do you accept Paul but reject Peter? If you love Jesus, why do you reject His apostles?

 

[Solo]

Why did Paul write more books in the Bible?

Because that's what Paul's job was. Peter was the head of the Church, busy in those regards.

Peter was not the head of the Church, Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. Peter was sent to the Jews, while Paul was sent to the Gentiles.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:7-9

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Collosians 1:12-18

Why did Paul have to correct Peter in his error in doctrine?

Paul never corrected Peter on doctrine.

Paul corrected Peter at Antioch.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:11-16

Why did the Roman church begin the papacy in 610 AD?

The papacy began with Peter. Linus was his successor.

Not according to history. Read the article found at http://www.nkcofc.com/Tracts/ThePapacy.htm

Actually, the first person to assume the title of Pope, as universal bishop, was not even in Rome. It was Hohn, bishop of Constantinople, in 588. In response to this, Gregory I, bishop or Rome and later called Gregory the Great and recognized by Rome as one of the greatest Popes, wrote first to John, “You know it, my brother; had not the venerable council of Chalcendon conferred the honorary title of universal upon the bishop of this apostolic See, whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given him; none has assumed the bold title, lest by assuming a special episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all other brethren… But far from Christians be this blasphemous name by which all honor is taken from all other priests, while it is foolishly arrogated by one.â€Â

Gregory the Great was not done. To the emperor, Mauritius, he wrote, “I am bold to say, that whosoever adopts or affects the title of universal bishop has the pride and character of anti-Christ, and is in some manner his forerunner in this haughty quality of elevating himself above the rest of his order.†(Both quotes by Gregory are from The Bible vs. Romanism, Trice, pp. 67-68). These are words from the man recognized by most Roman Catholic scholars as a primary architect of the modern papacy.

Actually, the title of Pope, as universal bishop, was applied to this same Gregory in 604 by the extremely wicked emperor, Phocas. This was a man who had “beheaded each of his predecessor’s five sons, then put out Mauritius’ eyes (this was his predecessor), and after torture, disemboweled him.†(The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, (Malachi Martin, G.P. Putman’s Sons, New York, p. 80 – Malachi Martin is a former Jesuit professor who served in Rome with Cardinal Augustine Bea and Pope John XXIII). Gregory refused the title, but it was later assumed by his second successor, Boniface III, in 607.

The Papacy did not spring from the mind of God; it does not start with Peter. History shows that it grew in the minds of men, ambitious men at that, and what exists in the Vatican today is not what Jesus planned.

Why wasn't Peter ever in Rome?

Of course Peter was in Rome, he newas crucified in what is now Saint Peter's Square.

No where does the Bible say that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul was a prisoner in Rome and he never mentions Peter being there. Peter's tomb has been located in Jerusalem where he lived, died, and was buried. Even Roman Catholic priests admit this is so. Read http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm[/color]

Why was John called the disciple that Jesus loved and not Peter? Why did John write five books of the Bible and Peter only wrote two?

I dunno, why did Mark write less? Why did Andrew write less? Because they were Bishops and Patriarches, not writers.

Peter could write and very well I must add. His two books are in the New Testament with John's five books and Paul's thirteen books. It seems that Peter was being lax if he was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Of course the Bible says that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews and not the Gentiles.

Why was John called the Apostle that Jesus loved?

Why are all twelve apostle's names written in the New Jerusalem instead of just Peter's?

Because Peter was one of twelve apostles.

Because God knows each of the twelve believed that Jesus is the Christ, and each one has the understanding that Jesus is the Rock upon which the Church of Christ is built. All of the apostles recognized that Peter was sent to the Jews, and Paul was sent to the Gentiles.

If you love Christ, why don't you follow him and his Word instead of the lies and heresies of the Roman Catholic Church?

It is because of my love for Christ that I follow Him and His Word, which includes His Church and the scripture that put Peter as the head of His Church.

Based on Roman Catholic responses that I have had in the past about salvation, I doubt all who claim salvation, and desire that they be not deceived by a satanic deception. It is one thing to know Jesus and his claims, it is yet another to know him as savior. Could you please tell me how you became a child of God and how old you were at that point in your life to verify that you are heading in the right direction away from the lies of an apostate institution.

Why do you accept Paul but reject Peter? If you love Jesus, why do you reject His apostles?

I do not reject Jesus' Apostles, I reject satan's lies and deceptions.
Peter was a great Apostle, and I see him much as I am in my life. I love to read the truths in his books. I do not like to see his name taken in vain as the Roman Catholics do in order to justify their false doctrine of the papacy. If you love Jesus why do you believe a man is the head of the Church instead of Jesus?

 

[Novice]

I'm not a Catholic, but I LOVE watching the NYT crossword puzzle fun that people have trying to wriggle out of the clear implication of Jesus' words.

Solo, the fact that you kept asking your rhetorical question again and again indicates prima facia that it's against the obvious reading.

This ain't kabbala, or the Masons, or Harry Potter. "You are PETER, (not Simon) and on this ROCK will I build my church."

That's what my grandpappy taught me (head of the Gideons and an old school Presbyterian, by the way), and I see no reason to set aside his good, old-fashioned, high-school educated, common sense.

Now whether that ROCK then passed on sole authority to the Papal succession is an argument worth having (or not), but this acrostic Mensa jabborwocky is not.

Pax to Romana and Yopapa

 

[Novice]

I also loved this straightforward piece of Bibleolatry:

Did Jesus speak Hebrew? Did Jesus speak Greek? Did Matthew write his gospel in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew? What part of the writing of the gospel of Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I hope I'm mistaken in taking as an inference that the ACTUAL Aramaic words that the incarnate Lord SPOKE were not authoritative, but rather the koine Greek words transliterated by Matthew were. In which case I gather our crucified Lord was not the "Word of God", but rather it is a leather-bound stack of cigarette paper that is part of the Trinity.

Protestants say Catholics worship the Pope, Mary, and statues. I say many Protestants worship a book...

 

[Amity]

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I thought the rock that the church was built on, was Peter's confession of Jesus Christ.


In Christian love,

 

[farley]

Your asking for opinions, eh?

Well, I've got one, too!

Keep in mind that...just like yours...this is just an opinion!

I don't expect anyone's mind will be changed by my perspective, but to me, it makes a lot more sense that anything I see here. BTW, I'm not trained in Greek. I would appreciate it if some who are Greek scholars would see how my perspective below compares.

Here goes: It's not WHO is the rock, it's WHAT is the rock!

The rock is an understanding.

The rock is an agreement.

The rock is a commandment.

The rock is a covenant, if you will.

It is mentioned several times in the NT, however, it is explained in a little more detail in the passage you reference above.

Paraphrasing: Jesus is simply telling Peter, and the rest of the apostles, that those who properly recognize Him in this world, will be properly recognized by Christ in the next world.

See Matthew 10:32, and the related verses referenced to it.

Matthew 10:32 KJV
(32) Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Will y'all not agree with me that THIS understanding is truly the "essence", the ROCK, that Jesus Christ's church is built upon?

In Christ,

farley

 

[Solo]

I also loved this straightforward piece of Bibleolatry:

Did Jesus speak Hebrew? Did Jesus speak Greek? Did Matthew write his gospel in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew? What part of the writing of the gospel of Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I hope I'm mistaken in taking as an inference that the ACTUAL Aramaic words that the incarnate Lord SPOKE were not authoritative, but rather the koine Greek words transliterated by Matthew were. In which case I gather our crucified Lord was not the "Word of God", but rather it is a leather-bound stack of cigarette paper that is part of the Trinity.

Protestants say Catholics worship the Pope, Mary, and statues. I say many Protestants worship a book...

I was hoping that you had the original documentation where Jesus spoke this in Aramaic with the exact words that he used in referring to Peter. All others that I have read are just speculating that Jesus used the Aramaic word for rock in both instances.

Stay out of those cigarette papers!

 

[Solo]

All through the Bible the rock is referred to as God or Jesus. Jesus is actually called the Rock by Paul. King David calls God the Rock many times in the Psalms. Peter in never called the Rock or the head of the church as some have alluded to; in fact, Peter calls Jesus the cornerstone, the rock of offense to those who don't believe. Jesus calls Peter a rock and then uses him as an allagory to describe that that which God revealed to Peter would be the Rock upon which the Church would be built. The belief that Jesus is the Christ and that belief doesn't come by man, but by way of God.

The Rock that Jesus built his Church upon is the person of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, the redeemer, the savior, the protector, the victor, the overcomer, the door to the kingdom, the way, the truth, the life.