"On this Rock I will build my church"

[Desert Snake]

Your getting ''mean nothing'' ,or rather not mean nothing, mixed up with ''choosing you to start the catholic church''''

The name
Peter , doesn't ''mean nothing'', but Jesus is not building the church , on Peter.

ie /built on the Gospel etc

The ''church'' by the way, means the Christians/Jesus followers. It doesn't mean 'RCC'.

 

[metis]

The Living Stone 1 Peter 2:8
…To you who believe, then, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the message — and to this they were appointed. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.…
So by accepting Peter as the Rock you follow in their footsteps disobeying the message, and rejecting the true meaning. Jesus is the cornerstone and proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God is the foundation.

You really do not know what you're talking about. "Rock" is used more than once in scripture and is often used symbolically. What you are saying literally makes Jesus into some kind of fool whereas he assigns a completely meaningless name to Simon. And then you ignore how the early church understood this. In no way am I saying or implying that the "N.T." claims that Jesus isn't the "cornerstone".

Maybe go do some serious studying before making such foolish and disingenuous accusations.

 

[Kemosloby]

You really do not know what you're talking about. "Rock" is used more than once in scripture and is often used symbolically. What you are saying literally makes Jesus into some kind of fool whereas he assigns a completely meaningless name to Simon. And then you ignore how the early church understood this. In no way am I saying or implying that the "N.T." claims that Jesus isn't the "cornerstone".

Maybe go do some serious studying before making such foolish and disingenuous accusations.

I take it you disagree with me?

 

[metis]

Your getting ''mean nothing'' ,or rather not mean nothing, mixed up with ''choosing you to start the catholic church''''

The name
Peter , doesn't ''mean nothing'', but Jesus is not building the church , on Peter.

ie /built on the Gospel etc

Didn't Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep..."? When Paul came to the Twelve with some ideas, which apostle did he approach first? When the apostles are listed, which one is almost always listed first? And, as I mentioned in my previous post, why would Jesus assign such a name to Peter of it meant nothing?

Jesus predicted his own death, and he well knew the infant church would need leadership, so the Twelve he appointed and their successors became that church, which was probably the main purpose of Acts being written.

 

[metis]

To me, "this rock" meant Jesus himself, as if he were pointing to Peter and saying "Your name means rock," and then pointing to himself, saying "Upon this rock I will build my Church". In the Eastern point of view when Jesus pointed to himself he was pointing to the inside of himself, his Being, his Spirit, his Self, his Silence, his Enlightenment, etc.

But that finger pointing is no where found in that narrative. As I mentioned to a couple of others here, it makes not one iota of sense for Jesus to have given Simon that new name if it didn't mean anything.

 

[Kemosloby]

Didn't Jesus tell Peter to "feed my sheep..."? When Paul came to the Twelve with some ideas, which apostle did he approach first? When the apostles are listed, which one is almost always listed first? And, as I mentioned in my previous post, why would Jesus assign such a name to Peter of it meant nothing?

Jesus predicted his own death, and he well knew the infant church would need leadership, so the Twelve he appointed and their successors became that church, which was probably the main purpose of Acts being written.

Matthew 23:10
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.

 

[Kemosloby]

But that finger pointing is no where found in that narrative. As I mentioned to a couple of others here, it makes not one iota of sense for Jesus to have given Simon that new name if it didn't mean anything.

I told you a sense of it. to see who gets the real message. What sense was there to put the tree of knowledge in the garden? To test who wants to believe God or who wants to believe a man.

 

[metis]

Matthew 23:10
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.

So, since you want to take that literally, you therefore must also believe that the apostles did not instruct others? If that's the case, then what is Acts about, and also all the instructions provided in the epistles?

 

[metis]

I told you a sense of it. to see who gets the real message. What sense was there to put the tree of knowledge in the garden? To test who wants to believe God or who wants to believe a man.

OK, so therefore the apostles were just ornaments of some type, iyo? They were men, right? So, using your logic, they should be ignored, right? Therefore, maybe you should throw your Bible into the trash because it was written and canonized by men, right?

 

[Kemosloby]

OK, so therefore the apostles were just ornaments of some type, iyo? They were men, right? So, using your logic, they should be ignored, right? Therefore, maybe you should throw your Bible into the trash because it was written and canonized by men, right?

There was no head instructor, Christ was the head. and they were all equal. If they understood that Peter was the leader why would they ask Jesus which of them was the greatest? We listen to the Apostles because we believe what they are saying came from Christ. Are Pauls teachings any less than Peters?

 

[metis]

There was no head instructor, Christ was the head. and they were all equal. If they understood that Peter was the leader why would they ask Jesus which of them was the greatest? We listen to the Apostles because we believe what they are saying came from Christ. Are Pauls teachings any less than Peters?

You apparently are not familiar with the fact that at least three of the apostles had different roles to play. You might also ask why is it that it often says "Peter and the others" and why is it that when there's a listing of apostles Peter's name is almost always mentioned first in the gospels? Also, are you at all familiar with Ignatius' letter to Clement? Maybe you should google and read it.
Besides studying the scriptures much more carefully than you have, you also might start doing some reading on early church history, especially how the 2nd century church saw itself. If you ever decide to do that homework, please let me know and then we then can have a much more serious discussion. Right now, all you are doing is grasping at straws and none of them are working.

 

[Kemosloby]

You apparently are not familiar with the fact that at least three of the apostles had different roles to play. You might also ask why is it that it often says "Peter and the others" and why is it that when there's a listing of apostles Peter's name is almost always mentioned first in the gospels? Also, are you at all familiar with Ignatius' letter to Clement? Maybe you should google and read it.
Besides studying the scriptures much more carefully than you have, you also might start doing some reading on early church history, especially how the 2nd century church saw itself. If you ever decide to do that homework, please let me know and then we then can have a much more serious discussion. Right now, all you are doing is grasping at straws and none of them are working.

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be my God, the Rock, my Savior!

On this Rock he built his church...

 

[metis]

Let's take a look at the narrative involved:

Matthew 16[13]:Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
[14] And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
[15] He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
[20] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Now notice how Jesus uses "you" in reference to Peter and not just supposedly as just a statement of faith. He is talking to Peter about Peter himself.

So, it is important to read the scriptures as they are written and not as one might want them to be written. There should be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the "you" refers to Peter and his designated role.

If there was any doubt about that interpretation, the 2nd century patriarchs of the church certainly cleared that up.

 

[Kemosloby]

Let's take a look at the narrative involved:

Matthew 16[13]:Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
[14] And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
[15] He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
[20] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Now notice how Jesus uses "you" in reference to Peter and not just supposedly as just a statement of faith. He is talking to Peter about Peter himself.

So, it is important to read the scriptures as they are written and not as one might want them to be written. There should be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the "you" refers to Peter and his designated role.

If there was any doubt about that interpretation, the 2nd century patriarchs of the church certainly cleared that up.

If it was written And I tell you, you are Peter, and on you I will build my church. then there would be no doubt. But as it is, it makes much greater, even absolute sense that the Rock is Christ, and testifying Christ is the Son of God is the foundation of his church. Else where does it ever say believe in Peter and you will be saved. But the second century patriarchs followed in the path of the hypocrite and boosted up their positions claiming Peter was the rock and they themselves successors.

 

[metis]

If it was written And I tell you, you are Peter, and on you I will build my church. then there would be no doubt. But as it is, it makes much greater, even absolute sense that the Rock is Christ, and testifying Christ is the Son of God is the foundation of his church. Else where does it ever say believe in Peter and you will be saved. But the second century patriarchs followed in the path of the hypocrite and boosted up their positions claiming Peter was the rock and they themselves successors.

Now you are just being dishonest as I never stated nor implied that some belief in Peter will get one "saved". And then you refer to the 2nd century church as being a "hypocrite" whereas Jesus said that he would guide the church to the end of times?! Really?

Believe as you want to, as you clearly do, because it makes no difference to me what you believe as you are reformatting the scriptures to align with your own bias. As one who has no irons in this fire (I'm not Catholic), it's time for us to part.

 

[Kemosloby]

Now you are just being dishonest as I never stated nor implied that some belief in Peter will get one "saved". And then you refer to the 2nd century church as being a "hypocrite" whereas Jesus said that he would guide the church to the end of times?! Really?

Believe as you want to, as you clearly do, because it makes no difference to me what you believe as you are reformatting the scriptures to align with your own bias. As one who has no irons in this fire (I'm not Catholic), it's time for us to part.

Lets continue, what else do you have to do. Why didn't Jesus just come out and say "I am the Son of God", Why have Peter say it? It's ambiguous because Jesus wants other people to say it, to show they too have the holy spirit. In the context that it's written I can easily see that it means testifying Jesus is the Son of God is the Rock of truth that the Church is built on.

 

[Clear]

Regarding Mattew 16:16-19

Now Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Phillipi, he asked his disciples saying “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered [and] said to him, “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven and therefore I say that you are Peter. And upon this rock I build my assembly and gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. I give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens and what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven….” (punctuation is changed as an example)

αποκριθεις δεο Ιησους ειπεν αυτω μακαροις ει Σιμων Βαριωνα οτι σαρξ και αιμα ουκ απεκλυψεν σοι αλλ ο πατηρ μου ο εν τοις ουρανοις καγω δε σοι λεφω οτι συ ει Πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πθλαι αδου ου κατεσωυσουσιν αυτης δωσω σοι τας κλειδας της Βασιλειας των ουρανων, και ο εαν δησης επι της γης εσται δεδεμενον εν τοις ουρανοις και ο εαν λυσης επι της γης εσται λελυμενον εν τοις ουρανοις.



Hi Kemosloby


1) The concept of a revelatory witness as the principle of gathering Christians
I like your insightful description of the concept that the assembly (εκκλεσσια) of believers was to be accomplished through the revelatory witness of the spirit that Jesus is the Son of God. I agree with you that the disciple Peter was not the “rock" referred to as the principle upon which individuals would assemble, but rather the witness from the spirit that Jesus is the Son of God; the Christ :

2) The improper application of a feminine noun (rock) to a masculine object (Peter)
In this verse, two versions of “rock” are being used, one is masculine (Petros) and the other is feminine (Petras), and as Metis pointed out, "Petra" couldn't be used as his [Peters’] name because it's feminine”. And yet it IS used and DOES refer to something.

a) The multiple possibilities of greek sentence structure changes meaning
In the Uncials, (before punctuation was added in "modern" times), the sentence structure has multiple possibilities. After Peter received his revelation that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus says that the revelation to to Peter came from “my Father in [the] heavens. Therefore I say that you are [a] Rock (Petros). “ο πατηρ μου ο εν τοις ουρανοις καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει Πετρος”. The meaning also further changes if Jesus is speaking either Aramaic or national Hebrew.

b) The first “Petros” and the use of the MASCULINE word “rock”
Jesus doesn’t explain clearly what this first use of the masculine “Petros” means. One does not know how the word “Petros” was being used. After receiving the spiritual confirmation that Jesus was the Christ, is Jesus saying to Simon, you are a Rock (“rock” lack the article in this instance). That is to say, now you have the witness and you are “immovable and firm” on this point rather than using “Petros” as a mere name.

c) The second “Petras”, and the use of a different FEMININE word “rock”
The appellation of Peter as “a rock” is masculine : “PETROS”.
The use of the revelation/witness as “the rock” is feminine : “PETRAS”,

As Metis correctly pointed out, "Petra" couldn't be used as his name because it's feminine".,

Thus, the reference to “petras”, (the feminine rock of a revelatory witness upon which the assembly of Christians will be accomplished) is not the masculine “Peter”. The rock of Revelation/witness of Jesus, as the principle upon which Christians will gather, reflects the feminine use of petras (i.e. revelation).

3) The specific keys to bind and loose were given to all 12 apostles
Also, the version of this same declaration of keys to bind and loose described in Matthew 18:18 clearly refers to the disciples in the PLURAL. I say to you (plural, greek υμιν) whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (see verse 18:1). Thus, the other disciples were also given the specific keys to bind and loose.

4) The apostolic Authority of Peter was never, historically, transferred to the Roman Congregation
Also, though I think Peter did have a position of leadership, he never, historically, gave his apostolic authority to the Bishop of the roman congregation, but instead, the roman congregation was without apostolic leadership with the rest of the congregations upon the death of the last apostle holding that authority.


I agree with you that Jesus has always been the "head" of the church bearing his name and the principle upon which individuals will assemble, was to be the revelatory witness in their hearts and minds that Jesus is the Christ.

In any case, kudos to you for understanding some concept of historical subtleties.


Clear
ειακφυνεω

 

[metis]

7) The apostolic Authority of Peter was never, historically, transferred to the Roman Congregation
Also, though I think Peter did have a position of leadership, he never, historically, gave his apostolic authority to the Bishop of the roman congregation, but instead, the roman congregation was without apostolic leadership with the rest of the congregations upon the death of the last apostle holding that authority.

Are you at all familiar with Ignatius' letter to Clement written around the beginning of the 2nd century? Have you read any of the 2nd century letters dealing with this subject?

Here:
Other scholars and historians disagree, citing the historical records of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d 107) and St. Irenaeus who recorded the linear succession of Bishops of Rome (the popes) up until their own times. They also cite the importance accorded to the Bishops of Rome in the ecumenical councils, including the early ones...

During the 1st century of the Church (c. 30–130), the Roman capital became recognized as a Christian center of exceptional importance. Clement I, at the end of the 1st century, wrote an epistle to the Church in Corinth intervening in a major dispute, and apologizing for not having taken action earlier. However, there are only a few other references of that time to recognition of the authoritative primacy of the Roman See outside of Rome. In the Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007, theologians chosen by the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches stated: "41. Both sides agree ... that Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch,[49] occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium."

In the late 2nd century AD, there were more manifestations of Roman authority over other churches. In 189, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in Irenaeus's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree ... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." In AD 195, Pope Victor I, in what is seen as an exercise of Roman authority over other churches, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover, a tradition handed down by John the Evangelist (see Easter controversy). Celebration of Easter on a Sunday, as insisted on by the pope, is the system that has prevailed. -- Pope - Wikipedia

Distance between the local churches made any kind of uniformity difficult, so there was more of a de facto sovereignty amongst them because of this.

As with Paul, the church saw itself as "one body", and that was generally recognized as such until the Coptic Church split off mainly because of distance and leadership problems. Much later in time, once communications and transportation was much easier, many of the distant churches re-united under papal authority. Even Luther regretted the split that he himself helped cause during the Reformation.

 

[Clear]

Hi Metis;

Read your own post. Nothing in it is relevant to the specific historical point that Peter never historically was a standing bishop of rome nor did he give Linus (the first bishop of rome) his apostolic authority.

Your post describes the Roman Christian movement becoming pre-eminent while the historical issue is the specific transfer of Apostolic Authority from Peter to an obscure roman bishop. THAT is the historic connection the Roman historians sought to establish but have never been able to establish. The Great and wonderful Catholic Historian Duschene spent his entire career trying to make the connection and could never do it. Neither has any other historian been able to bridge this specific historical gap.

The historical problem was always that there is no period specific evidence to the claim that Peter was the first Standing Bishop of Rome, nor that he gave his Apostolic Authority to any bishop of the Roman Congregation. All such claims were “back claimed” in later periods when Rome was trying to establish it’s authority over other congregations.

You and I have, (as you will remember), discussed this very issue. You remember how it went? You were unable to refer to any historical evidence from the earliest periods that Peter gave Linus (the first bishop of Rome) his own, apostolic authority. The same lack of evidence you experienced is the historical problem.

In any case Metis, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is good.

Clear
ειακνεσιω

 

[metis]

Hi Metis;

Read your own post. Nothing in it is relevant to the specific historical point that Peter never historically was a standing bishop of rome nor did he give Linus (the first bishop of rome) his apostolic authority.

Your post describes the Roman Christian movement becoming pre-eminent while the historical issue is the specific transfer of Apostolic Authority from Peter to an obscure roman bishop. THAT is the historic connection the Roman historians sought to establish but have never been able to establish. The Great and wonderful Catholic Historian Duschene spent his entire career trying to make the connection and could never do it. Neither has any other historian been able to bridge this specific historical gap.

The historical problem was always that there is no period specific evidence to the claim that Peter was the first Standing Bishop of Rome, nor that he gave his Apostolic Authority to any bishop of the Roman Congregation. All such claims were “back claimed” in later periods when Rome was trying to establish it’s authority over other congregations.

You and I have, (as you will remember), discussed this very issue. You remember how it went? You were unable to refer to any historical evidence from the earliest periods that Peter gave Linus (the first bishop of Rome) his own, apostolic authority. The same lack of evidence you experienced is the historical problem.

In any case Metis, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is good.

Clear
ειακνεσιω

I'm afraid you are "reading" what you want to read versus what was actually written. This is of no surprise to me since you do have "irons in the fire" whereas I don't since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian. But I do know my early church history, as a bit "scattered" as that history sometimes is. I'll explain.

The early church never saw itself as being anything other than "one body" under the leadership of the apostles and their appointees, and that should not be ignored. It was not to be a batch of independent local churches operating using difference sets of scriptures. Your Bible is a bi-product of this "one-body" approach.

Peter's leadership role in this is quite clearly well covered in the early 2nd century by the writings of those involved, including those not in Rome, that includes the fact that the Bishop of Rome had a special designation, although more of an advisory role and much less as a binding one. Yes, that role was not as formalized as it was to later become, but it existed nevertheless.

In Acts, what we see being created is what came to be called "apostolic succession", and this is very obvious from the appointees and their roles, which are sometimes repeated in various epistles. It was certainly not a "let everybody do their own thing" approach. Peter was one of those who had a role, in his case being more a "spiritual leader", and James was more the political leader, and other roles were then invented and added as time went on.

As we get into the 2nd century, what had been done before was continued onward, and that logically involved one person, like Jesus and then Peter, who would be the more-or-less spiritual leader of the church, especially since there was no selected canon nor any creed at first.

If there had been no recognition of such a leader, then the church would have had quickly devolved into utter chaos, as it almost did anyway. As time went on, it became increasing clear that a head needed to be recognized and followed, at least to a certain degree, and that was the Bishop of Rome speaking from "the chair of Peter". Without this recognition, the church may well have ceased to exist and collapsed into myriads of local churches with increasingly fewer ties to one another. IOW, it is possible that Christianity may have actually ceased to exist as a religion per se.

Even today, just several hundred years past the Reformation, look how many denominations there are, each telling the other that they have the truth. Had this occurred prior to there being a canon selected and/or a binding creed drawn up 1600 years ago, just imagine what "Christianity", if it even existed, would be like today.

Take care and have a merry Christmas.

BTW, please quote me from now on if you're responding to me as I almost missed the above because it wasn't "flagged".