Church is built onto Peter? Matthew 16:18-19

last SG · 2005-08-14T22:38:55+00:00

Topic drifted? So anyone verified 16:18,19 is written in Greek or Aramic? Did St Matthew make a mistake or we did? Cheers

M©+square SG

My respond to Honeybunz

Contextual Read

Chp 16 v1 - 20 [Amplified Version]

1 NOW THE Pharisees and Sadducees came up to Jesus, and they asked Him to show them a sign (spectacular miracle) from heaven [attesting His divine authority].

2 He replied to them, When it is evening you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,

3 And in the morning, It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and has a gloomy and threatening look. You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.

4 A wicked and morally unfaithful generation craves a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Then He left them and went away.

5 When the disciples reached the other side of the sea, they found that they had forgotten to bring any bread.

6 Jesus said to them, Be careful and on your guard against the leaven (ferment) of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

7 And they reasoned among themselves about it, saying, It is because we did not bring any bread.

8 But Jesus, aware of this, asked, Why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? O you [men, how little trust you have in Me, how] little faith!

9 Do you not yet discern (perceive and understand)? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many [small hand] baskets you gathered?

10 Nor the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many [large provision] baskets you took up?

11 How is it that you fail to understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But beware of the leaven (ferment) of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

12 Then they discerned that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

13 Now when Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is?

14 And they answered, Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

15 He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am?

16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.

20 Then He sternly and strictly charged and warned the disciples to tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
_____________________________________

Matthew 16:18 - As Key Subject

18 And I tell you, you are [1]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this [2]rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My [3]church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

References

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Mt 7:24 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:

Mt 7:25 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.

Lu 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

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

1 Co 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Sub reference

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
____________________________________

M©+square SG

Greek Definitions

[1]
Strong's Number: 4074
Original Word
Pevtroß

pet'-ros
Noun Masculine
Definition: Peter = "a rock or a stone"

1. one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

[2]
Strong's Number: 4073
Original Word
pevtra

Petra
Noun Feminine
Definition: 1. a rock, cliff or ledge

1. a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
2. a rock, a large stone
3. metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

[3]
Strong's Number: 1577

Original Word
ejkklhsiva

Ekklesia
ek-klay-see'-ah
Noun Feminine
Definition: 1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
2. the assembly of the Israelites
3. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
4. in a Christian sense

1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

M©+square SG

Firstly, i present my claims not to challenge the authorities of Catholicism and their beliefs.
Though i come to realise that Catholics are especially interested in these topics regarding history of Church, Bishops, Pope, Politics. All these are just my personal opinions.

Second, there is no desire of me to question the 'authorities' which endorse what Honeybunz have stated.
My question is like i've asked Icemoon in another thread regarding apologetics.
Because the websites and internet and books stated it's claims using Matt 16:18 as a key verse.
You believe it wholly?
Again my challenge is not against Church history. My problem is with the interpretation of Matt 16:18. It is flawed which will bring fourth my third reason below.

Honeybunz: Your belief is built on history and other materials to support the claims.
My belief is built on the word and by interpretations.
If this discussion doesn't work out to recieve any edification in the end. I think it is pointless to continue any further, just because both of us wants to prove if Peter is indeed(or isn't) the rock which Christ Jesus built upon.

Third and lastly, I wish to ask.

From Matt 16:18
Who is the Rock? Peter or Christ or unknown???

______________________________________

Matthew 16:19 - As key subject

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.

References

Rev 17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. He laid His right hand on me, and said, "Don't be afraid! I am the First and the Last,
18 and the Living One. I was dead, but look--I am alive forever and ever, and I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Matt 18:18 I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.

________________________________________

In contextwise, Peter spoke a revelation which he himself did not understand. However, the faith and revelation he demostrated was indeed the basis of faith in which '16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.' every believers should embrace. Here is a confession of the Christian faith, addressed to Christ, and so made an act of devotion.
Here is a confession of the Christian faith, addressed to Christ, and so made an act of devotion.

The materials and workmanship are his. By the working of his Spirit with the preaching of his word he adds souls to his church, and so builds it up with living stones,
1 Peter 2:5. Ye are Gods building; and building is a progressive work; the church in this world is but in fieriin the forming, like a house in the building. It is a comfort to all those who wish well to the church, that Christ, who has divine wisdom and power, undertakes to build it. The foundation on which it is built is, this Rock.

verse 18 should not be taken literally, it should be interpreted with insight of spiritual and symbolic meaning.

"Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I will build my church. - 1 Co 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Jesus used 'Petros' as a symbol of His church's foundation. Symbolically, He(Jesus) didn't mean Peter as foundation, He didn't authorize Peter as the Head/pope/bishop of the first or subsequent Church. He referred to Himself - The Firm Foundation.

What then is the ultimate foundation of the trust and confidence placed on if Christ is not the rock and foundation of His Church?
This foundation is firm, strong, everlasting, time will not waste, nor will it sink under the weight of the building.
Christ would not build his house upon the sand, for he knew that storms would arise. A rock is high, Ps. 61:2

Who would claim 'I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.' other than the Christ, son of the living God?

However, Peter did led the 'keys of Knowledge' - of Salvation through Jesus Christ and the proclaimation that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. To the Jews then the Gentiles. - Book of Acts

___________________________________

Regarding Matt 16:19

Christ spoke to all 12 apostles attending likewise he referred the 'petros in verse 18' to all 12.

The power here delegated is a spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to the kingdom of heaven,
Now the keys of the kingdom of heaven are, The key of doctrine, called the key of knowledge.

Which the apostles are delegated to standfast the integrity of the Teachings, theology and philosophy of Christianity.

in the common speech of the Jews, at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. Which in matters of the Epistles' letters will reveal.

This verse was frequently used by preachers for the issue on 'authority of Prayer' or 'Power of Authority' etc.

Cheers

Icemoon SG

You can't say the Church is built onto Peter 'cos

1. Peter wasn't even recognised as the boss from the very beginning. He may be Chief Disciple, but that's about it. Even the apostle Paul dared to rebuke him. Where was his authority, you tell me?

2. The office of the Bishop of Rome was not recognised to be supreme from the very beginning .Heck, the office wasn't even established until, you claimed, after AD 70.

3. Even if the office was established, I think (need to check with you) the other bishops from cities like Alexandria and Antioch did not really recognise him as supreme. During the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon, how strong was this bishop of Rome?

Icemoon SG

This, luckily for you, is the situation today - the two giant denominations are almost universal in their teachings.

But flash back 2000 years ago - orthodox christians fought theological battles with heretics. No one believed in Papal infallibilty I suppose. Or else councils would not be convened to settle theological disputes?

M©+square SG

Again the claims which HB posted are based on Catholic strength and assumptions.

Chin Eng SG

Guys and gals... why bother???? Like not hot enough in EH already... Laughing

M©+square SG

I also don't know why i bother....but i'm especially sensitive to misquotation of scriptures.

Rest assure it'll not go beyond two page.
Now, it depends Honeybunz wish to continue defending her stand.

Cheers

Honeybunz SG

Wah... so many things after one day of not logging in....
give me some time to rest, can?

Have to recharge my battery first.... In the meantime, have fun.

M©+square SG

Sure if you say so. Take your time. Razz

sillyme SG

Personally, the important thing to draw from Peter’s story is that God can still use you even after you rejected Him. Peter rejected Christ thrice but repented. Peter wasn’t able to deny himself to let go of the fear being persecuted. He didn’t believe that Christ needs to be crucified in order for salvation to be completed. It was after he realised that taking up the cross means much more than listening to the Word that he repented. Only when you listen, obey and perservere then your service to God will overflow.

Honeybunz SG

It is important is understand the history in order to understand why today the Church teaches certain topic in certain way. Is it a newly invented interpretion of the bible or has it been traditionally taught that way? History plays an important part. History and politics will also tell you how certain teachings or interpretion might have been distorted. You see, we only have that many books in the NT. There are many questions, eg Icemoon's question on the few impt cities, which the NT cannot explain.

It is just like why we have to know the culture in Jesus day in order to understand why it is so significant to mention Jesus talking to a Samaritan woman and a Caanite woman.

Not understanding the history and tradition of the church will only result in wrong interpretion of the bible. This is exactly what resulted in many cults being form during the last two centuries. Eg. Jehovah Witness. Did they ignore the church history? yes. Did they rely solely on the bible and they started off with a bible study class by a group of Protestant . Yes (which I think nothing wrong with this, except... see my last question). Did they have wrong interpretion in the bible? Yes.

The bible only records events happened during that period. Anything that it doesn't mention, you will have to count on history and tradition. For example, where in the bible do you find the word Holy Trinity? It isn't mentioned. So can we say that the two words are wrong? Other words that are not mentioned in the bible and yet Christians have always been using : "Incarnation,"; "Ascension," and "Bible".

Also, why Christians get married in Church? Why in the bible did anybody say we can do that? Nowhere. So is it wrong? So how do we know more about Christian marriage???

It is of course very convenient to ignore the history. Less things to teach. Also to hide the fact which is the original church. It is also easy for ppl to come out with own new interpretion of the bible.

Another reason for me to highlight the history is because Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ. Even historians can prove that. If I use Catholic writings in my arguments, firstly, you may not understand, and 2ndly, it might be seen by some other ppl as a "Catholic conspiracy".

Regarding whether Peter was the leader, you can see very clearly every time the disciples assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).

In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was "the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter." In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) "mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood...the place of Peter." Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Litiraria: "That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ, by God Himself.

The Lord saying: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona...Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church." (Matt. 16:17-19). "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambs...feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambsfeed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd" must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless.

Yes, true that a few ppl were mentiond arguing with Peter. Does that mean that he was not a leader? Ppl do argue. Even in today's church, there bound to be ppl disagreeing with one another. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin argued before.

"THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. Her 1 billion members inhabit the width and breadth of the earth, comprising almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Paradoxically, however, the Catholic Church is also the world's most controversial religious concept. Catholic belief is different, too different to be orthodox, say Protestants and Christian cultists. Catholic belief is too ethereal to be logical, and too strict to be enjoyable, say the humanists and agnostics. Hence to millions of people, Catholicism is not only a colossal success, it is also a colossal enigma. Of course, there has to be an explanation for these contradictory opinions -- and there is an explanation: Protestants and others who have questions about Catholic belief too often make the mistake of going to the wrong place for the answers. Too often books written by religious incompetents are consulted. The result is incomplete and distorted information. With such information, one cannot help but see the Catholic faith as a colossal enigma.

The right place to go for information about Catholic belief -- in fact the only place to go for complete and authoritative information -- is the Catholic Church herself. As any detective will tell you, no investigation is quite so complete as an on-the-spot investigation. Hence, dear reader, if you are a Protestant, an unaffiliated Christian, or an agnostic, who wants to know the truth about Catholic belief, take this friendly advice: Seek out a Catholic priest and put your questions to him. You will find him a very understanding and obliging person. Or read this little booklet. This booklet was written by a Catholic who knows the questions you are likely to ask, as well as the answers, because once he, too, was outside of the Catholic Church, looking in. The questions in this booklet are basically the same ones he put to a Catholic priest, and the answers are basically the same ones given him by that priest. Read this booklet; then forget all the fiction you have heard about the Catholic Church, for you will have the gospel truth. " - Paul Whitcomb, a former Methodist Pastor in USA

Honeybunz SG

Fandango was the one who started it. Actually it is sooo unnecessary.
Now he pressed his mute button Mad

I being an ex Protestant still love all my Protestant friends.

Catholics today call the Protestants - our seperated brothers and sisters. I would rather see the similarities, rather than the difference. Going thru "history lesson" here is really no fun for me at all cuz history has always been my worst subject ... hiak! Razz

SingaporeMacross SG

Yes. God always makes use of sinful people to do great things.

theoronin SG

You have taken the verse completely out of context. The shepherd was not a reference to the Apostle Peter. The shepherd is Jesus Christ. Please read the Bible carefully. This is what Jesus said,

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

Please note carefully what Jesus said. He said, "feed MY sheep," not "feed YOUR sheep." The sheep still belongs to Jesus. Jesus is still the shepherd.

There are other verses where the Shepherd explicitly refers to Jesus Christ:

Also, take note of this Scriptural passage: "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away." (1 Peter 5:1-4)

What do we know from this?

theoronin SG

Even though the Bible did not mention the word "Trinity," the concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible. The Christians simply coined a theological term to define that concept. The teachings for those theological concepts like "Incarnation," "Ascension" are all in the Bible. They are just collective terms.

Furthermore, it is written that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for salvation.

When the Apostle Paul preached to the Bereans in Acts 17:11, how did the Bereans validate Paul's teachings? Through traditions? Definitely not! They "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

M©+square SG

Indeed, i find no point in further questioning the authenticity of Matt 16:18,19 of topic stated above.

My reply weren't even answered thru solid bible study based.
Simply by knowing the significance of historical details and what the early church fathers wrote about the characters of the bible, does not mean it shall stand with the scriptures.

It was also thru History and Politics that the scriptures were distorted - there is always two sides of the coin.
Not understanding history and politics of Church(RC) will only result in ignorance, less knowledge.
Nowhere in the scriptures did Paul, Peter, James, Jude in their letters exhort anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of the Living God should and have to arm themselves with knowledge of church history and politics in order not to drift away from the meanings of scriptures nor prevent themselves from wrong interpretation.

I'll end with this question.

How will understanding Church politics and it's history prevent me from drifting away from the right interpretation of scriptures? What qualifies me to interprete the scriptures.

When in the scripture,
it was said that 'so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:4

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 9:1

To me, the answer lies in the Counsel of Holy Spirit. Not history or politics of Church.

Cheers

M©+square SG

I somehow sensed that the answer i get won't be a scripture based answer.

Rolling Eyes

theoronin: Good biblical presentation.

SingaporeMacross SG

What was the difference between the Bereans and the Thessalonians? Was it that the Bereans examined the Scriptures and the Thessalonians didnt? No.

Paul spent three weeks debating the Scriptures with the Jews in Thessalonica. Obviously, they were examining the Scriptures too, but they were closed-minded, and hostile to Pauls message. The Bereans, on the other hand, received the message with great eagerness; they were so excited that they examined the Scriptures every day, not just on the Sabbath. They were eager to believe Pauls message, and ready to accept it if it were true. That is why they were said to be of more noble character than the Thessalonians.

The Bereans examined the Scriptures because Paul was attempting to prove that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament messianic prophecies. He was trying to prove that the Scriptures foretold that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead; that was his whole message. So naturally the Bereans checked the Old Testament Scriptures to see for themselves whether they really said those things about the Christ.

Does this mean that Scripture is enough for Christians? No. Let us take note that neither the Bereans nor the Thessalonians were Christians. They were Hellenistic Jews. This whole passage is about how Paul dealt with potential converts from Judaism by appealing to the Old Testament messianic prophecies. It has nothing to do with whether Christians must rely on the Bible alone.

theoronin SG

On Acts 1:15
"In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)"

Take note the phrase "in those days." The Gospel of Luke was traditionally considered to be written about about 60 AD or 63 AD. The Apostle Peter supposed to have died in 69 AD. That means Peter was not "standing up among the believers" at the time the Gospel of Luke was written.

Another instance where the phrase "in those days" appeared is in Acts 6:1. It is written: "In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food." Therefore, as you can see from this verse, this phrase denotes a unique point of time in history. The problem of the widows might not be happening during the writing of the Gospel, but it was certainly happening "in those days."

Lastly, most importantly, there is no proof from this verse that Peter was appointed by the believer as a leader. The phrase "stood up" in Greek is anistemi, which appears in verses like Luke 10:25 and Acts 5:34.

As you can tell, the phrase "stood up" does not explicitly show Peter as a leader.

On Acts 5:1-10
This is a Biblical account of Ananias and Sapphira. There is no indication in the Scriptural passage that suggest Peter is the leader of the apostles. Spokesman maybe, leader no. In verse 2, Ananias "kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet." Please note the plural phrase "apostles' feet," not Peter's feet.