"On this Rock I will build my church"

[Searching1981]

After Simon said to Jesus "You are the Son of God", Jesus replied "thou art Peter (meaning stone), on this rock I will build my church". What did he mean? This could be taken two or three ways. Did Jesus mean he would build his church on the solid truth, a rock of truth "thou art the Son of God", Did he mean he would he build his church on Peter, or did he mean both?

Which brings up a related question. Why wouldn't Jesus call himself the Son of God?

I have heard the Vatican says it means Christ would build his church on Peter and justifies "Apostolic successsion". Somehow even protestant churches are saying the same. (did the Vatican secretly subvert the Protestant churches?)
The bible says you are all equal and one is your Father, (teacher, rabbi, head), Christ who is in heaven. And in many places calls Jesus "the rock". and not to add to or take away from scripture.

Could it mean both? Jesus is the big ROCK, the spiritual Father, and Peter is the little rock, head of the mundane, material or earthly side. If that was so wouldn't Jesus have said "on these rocks I will build my church"?

You have to find these passages and explain where that is said. I am Catholic.

I will point you to one passage, my favorite after Luke 21:16-19 where Mary Magdelene says, "Rabboni," John 20:16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means "Teacher"). It always brings tears to my eyes because Mary Magdelene in her intelligence, purity, wisdom, innocence knew the Christ being the Son of God, Resurrected was above all for us a teacher in his miracles not a Rabbi (religious leader) which Jesus denied every time.

 

[Searching1981]

Now, let me come back to this because it sounds like you are challenged by our (Catholics) churches concept. I don't want you to lose Faith, so I will say as a Catholic Peter is considered the first Pope but Papa Succession is not a big concept for us. What I mean by that is I think Protestants and Evangelical Churches make too big a deal out of it in justifying themselves, with humility I write this.

My perspective is whatever Papal Succession has been was already broken with by Martin Luther who no one can deny was a Holy Man who did Holy, necessary things for all Christians. So, to break the loop you are in, whatever Papal Succession there was from a Protestant's perspective was not honored by successive Popes; so, it doesn't matter from a Protestant Perspective whether Peter was (and I know he was) the first Pope. Instead, what matters is his successors, from a Protestant Perspective, did not live up to the call. Because if they had, there would be no schism.

But again, I can write this as a Catholic because nowhere do we believe someone like former Pope Benedict is anywhere equal to Peter. (some Catholics might but they are Legalists and Conservative). Catholicism has a lot of greater, way, way more important concepts than Papal Succession and there is a lot more to being Catholic than this very small concept. So, instead of being challenged by this concept ask yourself: am I happy with my Church, do I get the love and support from the Pastor and Community, am I growing closer to God because of it. Those questions are more important than the concept of Papal Succession.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, the name means a small stone, not the large rock needed as a foundation. Peter may have been a small stone in the fabric of the church but he was not the foundation rock.There is an old hymn that says, "on Christ the solid rock I stand". And "rock of ages is certainly not talking about Peter. Any thought that God would trust any mortal man with His church is foolish to even consider. It shows the length to which Catholics have fooled themselves. Non Catholics can see the foolishness of building God's church on a human person.

 

[jtartar]

Hi Folks...

The name Peter - best described as "bedrock" - FOUNDATION upon which all else is built

So Yeshua meets a man named SIMON - and before anything else He says to all present "Iam going to RE name you - PETER (the foundation)"....Let it sink in, bare with it a moment... Now, this may seem confusing at first - and we wont be given an explanation for quite some time - and as ususal - the exlpanation is for THOSE WITH EARS TO HEAR

Some years later my mate is "preaching" as you call it - Hes actually just speaking to people as he travels around, they flock to Him BECAUSE He IS truth, but He is not "proslatysing" for a "new religion" lol - just speaking openly and candidly about His truth - and it is obvious the PEOPLE need an explanation - especially His own disciples which are beginning to get confused (see Matthew prior to this next quote for details) - so He stops and asks them the following - a kind of TEST for them to see IF they understand Who He REALLY is :



So they are CONFUSED begin to misuderstand - so He decides to tell them candidly and openly His truth... They say to Him that He is obviously linked to their OLD GOD and that OLD PROPHETS have spoken of HIM Christ... He says though, TRY AGAIN - who do YOU say that Iam - and so Peter answers says "well I think you ARE the CHRIST" - and look here is the explanation for a name change - see Christ replies - "YES IAM CHRIST - and it was NOT THE PROPHETS of that old god that revealed this truth to you - but - it was MY FATHER DIRECTLY - and it is upon THIS - DIRECT REVELATION OF TRUTH that I shall make the FOUNDATION and such LIVING TRUTH DIRECTLY REVEALED can NOT EVER BE DESTROYED"...

Simon became PETER the foundation - explained when Simon revealed the truth of Christ DIRECTLY and NOT spouted "parrot fashion" learned from the "old religious truth" spoken by all those "old dead prophets" but from the DIRECTLY REVEALED LIVING TRUTH - Christ says He changes the name Simon TO Peter to reflect this FOUNDATION to ALL LEGITIMATE SPIRITUAL TRUTH - it IS REVEALED DIRECTLY and is NEVER learned from "man religion or words from a book"...The foundation IS the DIRECT COMMUNION mortal and Divine - my FATHER revealed the truth to Simon DIRECTLY - Christ changed the name to SYMBOLISE and REFLECT this NEW Self realisation.. He is telling them blatantly to DISREGARD THE RELIGIOUS TEACHING and to rely instead upon that which is revealed DIRECTLY by spirit and is it upon THIS directly revealed truth that the new "church" and tradition shall be formed..

Once again we see very clearly - my mate Christ has NO AFFILIATION to the old Hebrew religion OR its so called "god as that one is NOT Our Father - here He is telling disciples to DISREGARD the "old prophets" and instead use their LIVING TRUTH as the only guidance needed..My Father will reveal His truth DIRECTLY He says and it is this personal direct communion that is the foundation of all else...GNOSIS is always the key - for those with ears to hear..

PeteC-U.K.,
What you are saying does not agree with what other Scriptures say!!! For a belief to be correct it must agree with all other Scripture, as all Scripture is is in complete harmony, Monovocal!!!
If you have an Interlinier Bible which gives the Scriptures in English and Greek, look at Matthew 16:18, in Greek, where it says that Peter is Petros, which means a Little Rock or stone, then Jesus says that on this rock Petra, which means a Rock-mass, I will build my church, Congregation. The congregation was built on Jesus and no other, 1Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20. Consider also, Matthew 22:42, where Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone. The Cornerstone of a building is the foundation Cornerstone that makes the whole building straight and strong!! Consider also Acts 4:11,12.
1Peter 2:3-8 sums up exactly where Jesus stands in God's purpose.
Another vital truth is at Hebrews 7:22-25, which tells us that Jesus is a High Priest forever, that he lives forever so he always is Priest, so he has no successors, and is always alive to intercede for his people.

 

[metis]

Yes, the name means a small stone, not the large rock needed as a foundation.

Again, it's important to get out of the Greek and into the Aramaic.

Peter may have been a small stone in the fabric of the church but he was not the foundation rock.

IMO, not only is that a better way of looking at this, it's also totally compatible with Catholic teachings on this matter.

Any thought that God would trust any mortal man with His church is foolish to even consider

So, God and Jesus didn't trust the Twelve? Granted, trust is generally not an either/or thingy but usually a matter of degrees.

It shows the length to which Catholics have fooled themselves.

Really? I thought you believed in the Bible and what it actually says? God and Jesus appointed people-- real people-- to help them spread the message and organize their flocks. Moses was a real person, and look what God entrusted to the flock. Look at the Twelve, and what Jesus entrusted to the flock.

Non Catholics can see the foolishness of building God's church on a human person.

Then what about the Twelve?

My last two points above are not to say that the Twelve, the bishops, the pope, or any other earthly figure are what Christianity was and is based on, but that they did form the leadership of the church, especially when we consider that the canon of the Bible had not yet been selected or even written at first. Jesus told Peter "Feed my sheep...". Jesus "spoke with authority" as did the Twelve and the later leaders of the church, the latter of which also chose the Bible which you read.

Therefore, no doubt that God and Jesus were the foundation of the church, and no serious Catholic would ever doubt that for a minute, but they also know that God and Jesus appointed people to lead. To deny that is to deny what the scriptures actually do say.

 

[MJFlores]

Again, it's important to get out of the Greek and into the Aramaic.

IMO, not only is that a better way of looking at this, it's also totally compatible with Catholic teachings on this matter.
So, God and Jesus didn't trust the Twelve? Granted, trust is generally not an either/or thingy but usually a matter of degrees.

Really? I thought you believed in the Bible and what it actually says? God and Jesus appointed people-- real people-- to help them spread the message and organize their flocks. Moses was a real person, and look what God entrusted to the flock. Look at the Twelve, and what Jesus entrusted to the flock.

Then what about the Twelve?

My last two points above are not to say that the Twelve, the bishops, the pope, or any other earthly figure are what Christianity was and is based on, but that they did form the leadership of the church, especially when we consider that the canon of the Bible had not yet been selected or even written at first. Jesus told Peter "Feed my sheep...". Jesus "spoke with authority" as did the Twelve and the later leaders of the church, the latter of which also chose the Bible which you read.

Therefore, no doubt that God and Jesus were the foundation of the church, and no serious Catholic would ever doubt that for a minute, but they also know that God and Jesus appointed people to lead. To deny that is to deny what the scriptures actually do say.

Catholics say that the Roman Catholic Church is built on:

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

Peter the Rock
by Karl Keating

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

In my opinion, for all intents and purposes - that is their doctrine and their Church. To each his own church.

 

[metis]

Catholics say that the Roman Catholic Church is built on:

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

But only as the earthly spiritual leader.

And much like Peter worked in conjunction with the other apostles, the pope works in conjunction with the bishops.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Some one should research Simon the Sorcerer. He was a pagan who tried to BUY the power of the Holy Spirit from the apostles. Of course they wanted nothing to do with this. So Simon the Sorcerer decided to start his own religion. This is what grew into the worldwide "universal" church which still keeps many of the pagan ideas. So the chirch was really founded on Simon the Sorcerer and not Simon Peter.

 

[metis]

Some one should research Simon the Sorcerer. He was a pagan who tried to BUY the power of the Holy Spirit from the apostles. Of course they wanted nothing to do with this. So Simon the Sorcerer decided to start his own religion. This is what grew into the worldwide "universal" church which still keeps many of the pagan ideas. So the chirch was really founded on Simon the Sorcerer and not Simon Peter.

Well then, maybe give your Bible to someone else since it was this "Simon the Sorcerer Church" that chose the Christian canon.

 

[MJFlores]

But only as the earthly spiritual leader.

And much like Peter worked in conjunction with the other apostles, the pope works in conjunction with the bishops.

Well the Catholic Church has its own definition who is the rock is. I believe they said it was Peter, and they are entitled to their opinions.

For whatever rock they said their Jesus built the Catholic Church we have to respect that. It is a fact however that my Lord Jesus Christ never mentioned the word "Catholic" to designate his Church and Catholic authors have acknowledge this fact that the church acquired its name AFTER the death of the apostles.

13th-16th paragraph of
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
From The Catholic Answer, May/June 1996?
Published by Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 200 Noll Plaza, Huntington, IN 46750, 1-800-521-0600.
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
These are found:

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

 

[metis]

It is a fact however that my Lord Jesus Christ never mentioned the word "Catholic" to designate his Church and Catholic authors have acknowledge this fact that the church acquired its name AFTER the death of the apostles.

Yes, and I've posted this quite a few times previously on such threads. However, it is the same church that came to be called by different names, especially "the Way", "Catholic", and "Christian". When "Simon" was named "Peter" by Jesus, was it not the same person? "Saul" to "Paul"? Etc.

IOW, just because Jesus didn't use that name doesn't mean that it's a different church or that somehow it's a bogus entity. During Jesus' lifetime, the church was hardly "Universal", thus just a local entity, and even a minority one there.

 

[MJFlores]

Yes, and I've posted this quite a few times previously on such threads. However, it is the same church that came to be called by different names, especially "the Way", "Catholic", and "Christian". When "Simon" was named "Peter" by Jesus, was it not the same person? "Saul" to "Paul"? Etc.

IOW, just because Jesus didn't use that name doesn't mean that it's a different church or that somehow it's a bogus entity. During Jesus' lifetime, the church was hardly "Universal", thus just a local entity, and even a minority one there.

That is right - "During Jesus' lifetime, the church was hardly "Universal", thus just a local entity, and even a minority one there."

However Jesus named his Church

 

[metis]

However Jesus named his Church

And for the final time, let me repeat that "churches of Christ" was not used as a proper noun back then, and your constant repeating of it simply doesn't make it true. Therefore, there's really nothing more to discuss with you on this specific topic.

Here, maybe read this: History of early Christianity - Wikipedia

Oh, I have to add this: Going by what the early church said of itself, you actually do not belong to the "church of Christ". The mark of the early church was not the Bible, as it (the N.T.) had not yet been written, but was whether the leadership of one's local church could be traced back to the apostles, who were in turn appointed by Jesus. This comes out very clearly in Acts and many of the epistles whereas it shows appointees coming from the Twelve and Paul.

Therefore, unless you belong to the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Moravian, or one of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, all of whom can trace their appointees all the way back to the apostles, you do not actually belong to the "church of Christ" according to what the Bible itself verifies. Maybe check this out: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

 

[MJFlores]

And for the final time, let me repeat that "churches of Christ" was not used as a proper noun back then, and your constant repeating of it simply doesn't make it true. Therefore, there's really nothing more to discuss with you on this specific topic.

Here, maybe read this: History of early Christianity - Wikipedia

Oh, I have to add this: Going by what the early church said of itself, you actually do not belong to the "church of Christ". The mark of the early church was not the Bible, as it (the N.T.) had not yet been written, but was whether the leadership of one's local church could be traced back to the apostles, who were in turn appointed by Jesus. This comes out very clearly in Acts and many of the epistles whereas it shows appointees coming from the Twelve and Paul.

Therefore, unless you belong to the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Moravian, or one of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, all of whom can trace their appointees all the way back to the apostles, you do not actually belong to the "church of Christ" according to what the Bible itself verifies. Maybe check this out: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

It think if it was written, it is there [noun or pronoun] it was written and used.