• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians, Is Peter the rock?

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Does that mean the Apostles and their successors? Does that mean my (Anglican) Bishop can bind and loose whatever he wants when ever?
I didn't know you were Anglican. Nice people for the most part; much more tolerant of other religions than some denominations.

If your Anglican bishop can trace his authority all the way back to someone who definitely had that authority (i.e. an apostle), he can. ;) What I'm saying is that you can only confer authority you hold. Peter would have ordained (i.e. conferred authority upon) someone. That person could have ordained someone else, who could have ordained someone else, and so on. But if any time, someone takes authority upon himself without having received it by one already holding it, his "authority" is null and void as would the authority of anyone he might ordain.

I'm not sure what exactly you are thinking when you say "bind and loose." I mean, I know which passage of scripture you're thinking of, but I'm not sure how you're using the phrase in the context of the church today. Basically, to me, when Christ told Peter He was giving him this authority, he was saying that whatever Peter might do by this power (or authority) would have eternal significance. If he bound something on earth, it would remain bound in heaven. I suspect you're thinking along different lines.
 
Last edited:
Jesus was speaking of the kind of individual who God reveals Himself to. God will build His church on those that truly follow the son of man.

As the son of man and the Lord says "The man who keeps the commandments he has from me is the man who loves me and the man who loves me will be loved by my Father, I too will love him and reveal myself to him.

He wasn't speaking of Peter because didn't Jesus call Peter a devil also? Let us not forget that Jesus told Peter three times to feed His sheep.Was that because Jesus knew He would fail or just to show the importance of feeding the sheep to prove you love Him? I think both.
 

waterbear

Member

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
So reading up some stuff and Matt 19:18-18
"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. 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."

Now is Peter what Christ is building his Church on, and how does the concept of binding and loosing come into play in modern Christianity

As a Protestant I'm awaiting the responses

Jesus is the Rock he will will build his church on. Peter was kind of a flake (denied Jesus three times) and susceptible to impulsion (cutting the Roman guard's ear off). Furthermore, Paul had to correct Peter regarding circumcision of non-Jewish converts.

If the Roman Catholic Church wanted a Pope, they should have chosen Paul a Roman citizen and primary apostle to the Gentiles.
 

mcfleri

New Member
Jesus said, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter {Greek: petros, a piece of a rock], and upon this ROCK [Greek: PETRA, or large ROCK-cornerstone) I will build My Church, and the gates of hades {the grave-death) shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).​


this interpretation has been debunked by many scholars both catholic and protestants. The wording 'Petros' was change from the 'petra' (feminine) to fit the stylistic writing need to refer to Simon in a masculine manner.

You're interpretation will not hold water if you actually read that passage in aramaic (which is the language in Jesus' times and common sense will assume that it was the language Jesus spoke to Peter)

"And I say unto thee, thou art Kephas and upon this kephas, I will build my church...."
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
this interpretation has been debunked by many scholars both catholic and protestants. The wording 'Petros' was change from the 'petra' (feminine) to fit the stylistic writing need to refer to Simon in a masculine manner.

You're interpretation will not hold water if you actually read that passage in aramaic (which is the language in Jesus' times and common sense will assume that it was the language Jesus spoke to Peter)

"And I say unto thee, thou art Kephas and upon this kephas, I will build my church...."

Although helpful, I take scholar's analysis with a grain of salt and so should you. Nothing should replace your own study and analysis. As I've pointed out in previous posts, other scriptures support my interpretation and when it comes to choosing between what the wise of the world "thinks" and what God inspired in scripture, it's a no brainer.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
He most certainly was. For those who speak another language where words have a feminine and masculine nature to them, it's easier to see.

No surprise to most but, be mindful that Jesus didn’t speak Greek. Why is this important?

My old buddy Scott1 explains:

In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

The real issue here is people's faulty knowledge of Greek and Aramaic. Not that we have to be experts but it does matter.
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
Matthew 16:21-23 NIV
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
How can Peter be the Rock and Satan? :confused:
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
Why is that so confusing? It's not like being the rock makes you invincible or without the ability to sin? :confused:

Ok, so you agree that Jesus called Peter: Satan.

The answer is with-in your question. Peter/moral man is not the rock, but a stone (Greek) , able to sin. As man/humanity is to sand, Jesus is to rock. So Peter/man/sand cannot be the rock. A simple understanding of the comparisons of Jesus being "the rock" will overwhelmingly debunk Peter as being the the foundation of God's church.

Here is some more,
Is The Church Built on “Petros” or “Petra”
 

jtartar

Well-Known Member
So reading up some stuff and Matt 19:18-18
"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. 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."

Now is Peter what Christ is building his Church on, and how does the concept of binding and loosing come into play in modern Christianity

As a Protestant I'm awaiting the responses

ForeverFaithful,
I believe the scriptures that you are citing are Matt 16:18,19.
If you want to get as accurate understanding of exactly what Jesus was saying, you need to get a concordance. If you look up the word Peter, and look up the Greek word that was used at Matt 16:18 you will find that Jesus said you are Petros, meaning a little rock, and on this rock, Petra, meaning a rockmass, Jesus would build his congregation.
There are several scriptures that speak about who is head of the congregation, Col 1:18,24, Eph 5:23-25, Acts 20:28. 2Cor 6:19,20, 7:22,23 show that all belong to Christ.
There are even more pointed scriptures that could be used a Proof Texts, Eph 2:19-21, 1Cor 3:10,11.
Another very intersting point is made by Peter. Consider 1Pet 2:4-8. These scriptures show that Jesus is the real STONE, and a ROCKMASS of offense. Consider also Matt 21:42-44. Jesus was indeed the rockmass on which the congregation was built.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Ok, so you agree that Jesus called Peter: Satan.

The answer is with-in your question. Peter/moral man is not the rock, but a stone (Greek) , able to sin. As man/humanity is to sand, Jesus is to rock. So Peter/man/sand cannot be the rock. A simple understanding of the comparisons of Jesus being "the rock" will overwhelmingly debunk Peter as being the the foundation of God's church.

Here is some more,
Is The Church Built on “Petros” or “Petra”

The fact that Christ was also named rock doesn't imply that rock means the same thing everywhere in Scripture. Can you see that?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I'll do my best to answer the first question. In Mat 16:18, there are two different Greek words used for "rock". One identifies Peter [petros], the other refers to Christ [Petra]. A careful reading will reveal Christ was referring to Himself as the Rock [Petra] or Chief cornerstone of which the church would be built.
Jesus said, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter {Greek: petros, a piece of a rock], and upon this ROCK [Greek: PETRA, or large ROCK-cornerstone) I will build My Church, and the gates of hades {the grave-death) shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).​
Most people assume Christ is building His Church on Peter. But this is not the case. Christ is the great "Rock" upon whom the Church is built (Deut. 32:3-4, 15, 18; I Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; I Pet. 2:6), not Peter (Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18).


ageed.

There is another way to determine who Jesus was talking about as being the Rock....its in how Peter himself understood what Jesus meant when he told Peter "you are Peter, and on this Rock i shall build my church"

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?
Acts 4:8-11, JB: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” NAB].’”

1 Pet. 2:4-8, JB: “Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”

Eph. 2:20, JB: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone


Later christians spoke about this because it was later christians who came up with the teaching that Peter was the Rock in the first place. The very person who initiated the teaching later retracted it:
Augustine Wrote:
“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Pegg, you are walking on thin ice if you want to cherry pick early christian writings to your liking. For every one you manage to find that supposedly supports your position there are hundreds that object to it. I don't think you want to go there. :no:
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Pegg, you are walking on thin ice if you want to cherry pick early christian writings to your liking. For every one you manage to find that supposedly supports your position there are hundreds that object to it. I don't think you want to go there. :no:

does that mean you dont accept Augustines retraction?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
does that mean you dont accept Augustines retraction?

Have you read the entirety of the letter?

Agustine was in general an amazing philosopher and early church father but had some odd personal beliefs to which he was confronted about.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Have you read the entirety of the letter?

Agustine was in general an amazing philosopher and early church father but had some odd personal beliefs to which he was confronted about.

yes, one of those odd beliefs was that Peter was the 'rock'

fortunately he later came to realize it was not in harmony with scripture and changed that idea.
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
The fact that Christ was also named rock doesn't imply that rock means the same thing everywhere in Scripture.

Of course, but every usage of the word rock was not my point. It was the usage of the word rock as it pertains to Jesus elsewhere in the Bible.
 
Top