/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>821625

Because it's been a valid and widely used patristic interpretation.

t. Orthodox

>>821631

But that's an argument from authority, saying it should be believed because it has been believed is circular logic. That'd be like me saying you should believe that gay people are fine because other people (whom you and I disagree with) have believed it to be so.

>>821637

Because Peter alone was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, not Peter's "confession".

Because it's the same word in Greek, just one as male when used as the name and in feminine form later in the sentence (because that's just greek grammar). Peter is english for Petros and petra is used later).

You could just as well translate the sentence as "you are Rock, and on this rock"

>>821637

It's been believed by men who gave their lives for the faith, authoritatively defined every little detail of the faith that wasn't explicitly laid out in scripture, and were known to have worked many miracles. They had the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you reject their teaching on Peter, then you reject the claim that they were inspired. So if you reject their teaching on Peter, why should you accept their teaching on the Trinity? Or the natures of Christ?

Christianity is a religion that's all about submitting to authority. Authority flows from God, the highest authority, down through the hierarchy of the Saints and the Church until finally it flows through your priest's teachings to you. It works this way because God is above the Saints and the Church, and authority therefore flows from the top on down. From a Christian perspective, argument from authority is always a good argument.

>>821640

Yes, Peter was "given the keys to heaven", but his confession of faith is what the Church is built upon because it is faith in Jesus Christ. That is the foundation of Christianity. But here's the protestant argument against the RCC interpretation of Matthew 16:19:

www.gotquestions.org/keys-of-the-kingdom.html

>>821675

>From a Christian perspective, argument from authority is always a good argument.

No, an argument from revelation is always a good argument, and one church father saying something doesn't make it revelation (assuming they even taught this).

>>821625

God only changes peoples names when its important i.e. Ahbram becomes Abraham, Jacob becomes Israel etc.Jesus didn't change Simons name just for the lulz, he changed it because like Abraham, be becomes a spiritual father to the faithful (The Pope)

>>821647

Indeed, also Kefa where 'Kephas' comes from, and Sheol was probably used instead of Hades during that conversation.

Posted elsewhere:

There are various arguments used against the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18, but all are difficult to argue in favor of.

First of all, Jesus had just gathered all His disciples, and He chose to change Peter's name alone, (Abraham also had his name changed, and he was also called called the "rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)–one argument used against Peter being the foundation of the Church is how 1 Corinthians 3:11 refers to Jesus as the foundation. This is false precisely because the Apostles are also called twelve foundations (Apocalypse 21:14). What this means is that all authority comes from Christ, the Church itself comes from Christ. Well, Peter's authority comes from Christ. He established these things on Peter, so what's setup on Peter is a foundation on Christ, that does not mean He didn't establish an office which would be the rock on which the Church is built. He gives His keys (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18) to Peter, as it was prophesied in Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, (John 10:14) but He gives that responsibility to Peter also (John 21-15-17), to say that he then points to Peter and calls him "little rock" (Petros is the masculine version of Petra, the reason Petros is used and not Petra (In Aramaic it was "thou art Kephas and upon this Kephas) is to preserve the play on words, not to indicate that Jesus called him little rock) and point to Himself and says "upon this rock" makes no sense, as right after, He gives Him the keys which He possesses (Apocalypse 3:7, Apocalypse 1:18, Apocalypse 9:1, Apocalypse 20:1, prophesied in Isaiah 22:22), and if you pay attention to the wording, it's indicating an office that is established, not something that passes away with Peter. Understanding what the Keys are and Isaiah 22:22 indicate infallibility, and, again, we literally just have to point to early Popes like Leo the Great to see what Papal infallibility/Supremacy is. And you completely ignore the fact that Luke 22 is about which Apostle is the greatest, and Jesus affirm Peter, and He prays for Him alone. That's not a mistake. There's a strife among the Apostles as to who is the greatest, Jesus responds by saying His Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles, describing its structure. He says that Satan has desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) but He has prayed for Peter (singular, also the person who has the Keys), alone, that his faith fail not. This is the unfailing faith of the office of Prime Minister of the New Israel. Whatever He binds on Earth, obviously cannot be false in Heaven, therefore, someone in Peter's Chair cannot make a false teaching Ex Cathedra. And do you believe that those who wrote the Bible wrote infallibly? If so, it's not far-fetched to say He can give the Prime Minister infallibility under certain circumstances.

>>821637

You'd be right about it being circular logic if we were as autistic as you, but since we can understand multidimensional scenarios we see no fallacy in using it's authority as a proof of it's reasonableness.

Maybe it's a reference to the purpose of the apostles as a 'gathering' of rocks with which to build the foundation of the congregation. Maybe it's seen adjectively or metaphorically instead of literally in just a nominal manner.

"You are a rock" or "are made of rock" "and on this rock…"; "I will give you (and your ilk) the keys to the kingdom of heaven."

"Therefore, go teach all nations."