/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>566643

Seems a little unfair to look to those verses, considering Peter wasn't even born when they were written/took place.

>>566643

>Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants

Seems pretty clear to me Peter is the rock because Christ is the rock.

>>566647

> God spends the whole old testament using rock as a metaphor for God.

> Jesus founds church upon the rock.

> The rock means Peter there because reasons.

Sorry, but that is bizarre. It makes no sense. Also, there being a leader of Christianity is not found anywhere else in scripture. why is there no clear teaching on this if Christ really set up the "one true church" to led by a mortal man and whoever he passes the torch to.

Seems like that would be worth mentioning in his word.

> Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants

Way to read between the lines there, Basil.

>1 Corinthians 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.

>Matthew 21:42: Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

>Acts 4:10-11: Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

So there we go, very clear scripture says Jesus is the rock. Makes sense, cause God is the rock in the Old Testament and Jesus is God.

>>566665

Epic fail friend, but funny nonetheless

https://8ch.net/christian/res/564609.html

See my sinposting in this thread that got me yelled at for.

>>566686

>posts link to unrelated thread

>can't into thread link

butthurtapplicationform.jpg

>>566690

I'm just lazy, copy-pasting the URL is faster. I'm sorry. I must confess my overall laziness tomorrow before the Liturgy, if that is of any consolation.

>>566690

OK, let's try this again...

>>564679

>>566696

Much better!

>>566725

>Jesus gives Peter alone the keys to the kingdom which is a direct reference to Isaiah 22:22 where God entrusts one of his ministers to become the prime minister

Let me correct you there - the Fathers understand Isaiah 22:22 to be directly about Jesus, not about Peter or even the episcopacy.

>To claim God himself changes someones name just for a lame dumb pun that misleads people is borderline retardation.

On another note, the title "Sons of Thunder" for James and John is relevant too.

>>566711

He called him that (and it means stone btw, not rock), because he was founding his church, i.e he laid down the first stone. But upon himself.

Indeed we are all living stones making up a spiritual house, if we are in Christ. Let's hear from the man himself. 1 Peter 2:

> As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Cephas means stone:

> 42And 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.

>>566728

>On another note, the title "Sons of Thunder" for James and John is relevant too.

That's just metal.

>>566735

>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.

Who does Jesus give the keys to?

>>566643

Again with the useless literary analysis. Look at the history. The first proof of a pope exercising his authority is in the first century, Pope Clement, 88 AD writing to Corinth. The East considered the pope the first among equals until petty theological squabbles made them denounce the pope. In any case, protestant wacky interpretations have absolutely no basis in history.

>>566644

>Please turn from vain traditions

Jesus Christ clearly was talking about secular traditions which latched into the Church.

Now, listen. 2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Answer me, Is he talking about the same tradition as you are?

>me and my pastor with bachelor of theology knows more about theology than centuries of church theologians

Lol k

>>566766

>Jesus Christ clearly was talking about secular traditions which latched into the Church.

He was talking about traditions which are received as the word of God, but are not.

>>566752

To the Church

>>566666

>>566784

Now that’s what I call grasping at exegetical straws. There is no remotely conceivable explanation for any supposed shift in address as Matthew explicitly marks in verses 17 and 20, let alone addressing the Church that came into existence verbally not 3 seconds prior with the personal and exclusive "thee".

>>566816

>There is no remotely conceivable explanation for any supposed shift in address

The shift comes in verse 18

<I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

He's still talking about the same thing in verse 19. Plus, when this promise is fulfilled in 18:18, the keys are given to all the apostles, not just Peter.

Unless Catholics can show how the keys are different from the power of binding and loosing a chapter later we must admit that they are the same thing.

>>566711

>Jesus calls Peter 'Rock' for a clear and specific purpose, then explains exactly why He did that.

>Jesus calls Peter 'Rock' for absolutely no reason at all, then drops the subject and starts talking about Himself.

Suppose that Jesus had wanted to say Peter was this rock. He could have said: "That thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church." This would have worked with your analogy and the grammar would have made sense. Yet this is not what he said.

Suppose Jesus had simply left out mentioning Peter and started by saying "Upon this rock I will build my church." Then many would interpret "this rock" to be Peter.

The only way he could say what he meant to say was to differentiate between Peter and "this rock." You are Peter, and then there is this rock.

And yet, some will insist that Jesus said something to the effect of "You are John, and on this Johnny I will build my church" to refer to a single person in the third person twice, as two different names, in the same sentence. This is how have to twist the sentence to obtain your interpretation, but yet some still do it.

>>566755

>Look at the history.

The word of God is history.

>>566820

>the keys are given to all the apostles, not just Peter.

The authority of binding and loosing is given to all, the keys themselves are given only to Peter.

>>566824

The keys admit the power of binding and loosing. The other apostles are given the power, however the authority stems from one head and one body, Jesus Christ and St. Peter, who alone possess the keys and from whom flows the unity of bishops and the authority of the Church. All others possess the authority of the keys in some lesser degree, ranging from much authority to little authority. For example, the authority of a patriarch is much greater than that of a parish priest. Only one is given the keys since the Church has but one head, not two or twelve like a monster.

>>566833

The power of binding and loosing proceeds from the keys. Keys bind and loose people, to and from their chains.

>>566833

Right, cause a patriarch is given power from the bishops, and a priest acts in place of a bishop.

>18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and you're infallible when speaking ex cathedra, also you're the visible head of the Church after I ascend, and everyone has to do what you say :DDD

Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

>>566923

Sudowoodo best rock type

>>566755

1 Clement has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.

>>566941

didn't he get clonked on the noggin while riding

>>566946

obviously a phenomenologist horse

>>566820

Sorry, but "I will found my church" is part of an embedded clause, not a standalone sentence. You can tell by the way "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock" is an incomplete sentence. Furthermore, "my church" is in the third person, and "thee" in the second. If it read, "and on thee, my church", you would have a case, but as it stands there is none.

As to whom he gave the keys, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven". Thee, singular. To Peter alone.

>>566975

>"I will found my church" is part of an embedded clause, not a standalone sentence

Wow anon, what would I ever do without you

>Furthermore, "my church" is in the third person, and "thee" in the second

That's because He is describing the Church in verse 18 and then delivers a promise in verse 19.

>If it read, "and on thee, my church"

Then He would be calling Peter the church and the rock

>Thee, singular

It's singular because the Church is singular

>To Peter alone.

Matthew 18:18 still says they all received them

>>566985

>Wow anon, what would I ever do without you

Insist on a convoluted reading contrary to several fundamental rules of grammar?

>That's because He is describing the Church in verse 18 and then delivers a promise in verse 19.

The promise is that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church He founded on Peter. Verse 19 is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing to facilitate his role.

>Matthew 18:18 still says they all received them

It says they all received the power of binding and loosing. It does not logically follow that they must have also received the keys— Jesus made Peter the sheriff and deputised the other apostles.

>It's singular because the Church is singular

So why does He say the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, impersonal third person, if in the next sentence He was directly addressing it in the personal second person in the next sentence? Admit it, your exegesis relies on a tortured reading that defies common sense.

>>567015

>Verse 19 is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing to facilitate his role.

16:19 has Jesus telling Peter He -will- give him the keys of heaven, and the power to bind and loose. Not that He has given them yet.

The power to bind and loose is very obviously the power of the keys… If the writings of the Fathers are not enough for you, Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7 (you know… the Bible) confirms it.

>It says they all received the power of binding and loosing. It does not logically follow that they must have also received the keys— Jesus made Peter the sheriff and deputised the other apostles.

Peter receives a certain primacy by being given the promise before everyone else, and indeed it is through Peter that the apostles receive their unity and the keys. But it is incorrect to say Peter, alone, received the keys - which IS the power to bind and loose.

Whether it was Peter himself or Peter's faith it doesn't really matter and doesn't help the protestant cause (which tries to ignore the actual, visible, historical Church Christ started).

Jesus setup a visible Church, and Peter was the first "initiate" into it, obviously his faith was a pre-req for initation and becoming a bishop. The problem for protties is that his Church continues and didn't disappear…eastern orthos are still around.

>>566643

It's funny that these verses should be the most studied among Catholics, yet the majority of them don't know that the "rock" in Greek (Petra) and Aramaic (Shu'a) has complete different in expression and meaning than "Peter" or "Cephas".

Of course, they also fall back to muh trabibibion :DDD yet 80% percent of ECFs don't identify the rock as Peter himself. RCs really got nothing and there's a reason why pseudo-isidorian decretals were created to maintain ecclesiastical power.

>>567028

>Πετρος has nothing to do with πετρα

End this meme

And the Peshitta has literally the SAME WORD for Peter and Rock, (ܟܺܐܦܳܐ, Kepha). Only in your Protty mind does the existence of synonyms for rock in Aramaic and Greek invalidate the connection everyone from the apostles to 1500 years onwards accepted.

>>567076

The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas")

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'?

There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.

Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.

PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:

Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac

9 times by the word SHU`A' ,

6 times by the word KE'PHA' and

1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'

Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:

7 times by the word SHU`A'

(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)

3 times by the word KE'PHA'

(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.

[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable)

[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.

In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."

KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS.

Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is.

The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

> 1500 years onwards accepted.

Stop being so foolish to think that Roman Catholicism hasn't changed for nearly 2000 years- Even your apologists admit that your dogmas are a development of time. And there times when the ECFs disagreed with your dogmas, like pope gregory the great discouraging the "veneration" of icon in the church. You blame protestantism so can avoid the issue you face, yet every time when approached with a test of historical legitimacy you papists fail so badly. At best, what we see from 150 A.D. onwards is proto-orthoxy (by the suggestion of St.Ignatius) and no bishop that dictates over the entire church, that's a legend inflated by medieval politicians to expand European power, but what we observe in churches before 150 is plurality of elders working over the bishop like the apostles taught, which is not the way mama Roma operates thus she's hardly apostolic.

>>567094

<that wall of text

Doesn’t explain away the fact that both the Greek NT and the Peshitta keep the obvious wordplay. And no, you can’t "reconstruct" the original words by comparing which words in one text correspond to ones in the other because regardless of what kind of rock Kepha may be, the Πετρος/πετρα pair being a pun is far more relevant than the exact nuance in this case. Translation is far more nuanced than just looking words up in the dictionary.

<D-dogma has changed over the centuries, you stupid papist!

Show me where literally any Church Father denied that Jesus was talking about Simon Peter/Cephas in the verses in question and we’ll talk.

>>566975

>>567015

Stop taking the bait ffs

>>566934

His identity is not uncertain.

It's also very interesting how the pope of Rome wrote, not the bishop of Constantinople.

>If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.

Yeah, totally unauthoritative speech by a bishop that is as equal as others.

>>567015

>The promise is that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church He founded on Peter

No, that isn't a promise, that is a description (and the Church is not founded on Peter, but Himself).

>Verse 19 is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of binding and loosing to facilitate his role

Verse 19 is the promise to the Church that He will give them the keys to the kingdom of heaven

>It says they all received the power of binding and loosing. It does not logically follow that they must have also received the keys— Jesus made Peter the sheriff and deputised the other apostles.

How are the deputies to loose me from my handcuffs if they do not have the keys to them?

>So why does He say the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, impersonal third person, if in the next sentence He was directly addressing it in the personal second person in the next sentence?

He is talking about the same thing. "I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the Church). And I will give unto thee (the Church) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (the Church) shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (the Church) shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". I challenge you, where is the shift in topic from the Church to Peter? When does He stop talking about the Church and start talking about Peter?

>Admit it, your exegesis relies on a tortured reading that defies common sense

I admit your exegesis relies on starting Matthew's Gospel in 16:18 and ending it in 16:19

>>567105

>Show me where literally any Church Father denied that Jesus was talking about Simon Peter/Cephas in the verses in question and we’ll talk.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

>>567274

>>567015

Why isn't either of you taking a look at the things I posted earlier?

>>564679

>>566745

What does Matthew 1:25 have to do with any of this?

>>566755

>>567116

We know Clement wrote this letter because of Hermas, which identifies him as the elder in charge of correspondence with other churches. It's important to keep in mind when reading 1 Clement that there was no "bishop of Rome" (and there certainly wasn't any pope of Rome), Rome still maintained the apostolic form of government, being ruled by a number of presbyter-bishops (Titus 1:5-7, Philippians 1:1). We know Rome maintained this because of Ignatius to the Romans, Hermas, and of course, 1 Clement. So no, Clement is not speaking in his person as pope of Rome, but on behalf of the church of Rome.

Having a Vicar is dumb.

Christ is alive, why would i need someone to vouch for him on earth?

>>566784

>That non-reply

Please tell me, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, what is the interpretation of this verse?

can you smell it?

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”

‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:5‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The Lord has been the rock since before the foundations of creation

>>566711

See, I agree Peter is the rock, but there's a big jump between recognizing "Peter is the rock" and the patriarch of Rome somehow becoming the vicar of Peter (and now the vicar of Christ) and having supremacy (primacy yes, but not supremacy) over every other patriarch.

>he could not leave the twelve in charge because they argued among themselves

You mean like when Peter was shut down by other apostles for being a Judaizer?

There is a Church and Christ is the head of it.

>Matthew 16:18

>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and you're infallible when speaking ex cathedra, also you're the boss of the Church after I ascend and everyone has to do what you say :DDD

Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

>>575769

You must hold to the traditions you have received verbally from an Apostle in person or from the scripture that the Apostle wrote, i.e. the New Testament.

>>566643

don't bother reaching out to them friend, they will rot in hell along with their jewish masters

>>575921

Our Jewish Master - Jesus Christ - ascended from hell on the third day, triumphant. Not sure who you're talking about otherwise…perhaps the apostles? You do know He died and extended the covenant to all men right? We are the real Jews nao.

>You do know He died, rose again, and extended the covenant to all men right?

>>575769

You are to hold fast to the teachings which the apostles delivered to you.