/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>855157

He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear. Protestants and papists are deceived.

>>855157

>Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

>>855155

If Peter is not the rock, why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter, a name which means Rock immediately before referring to himself?

>>855160

Simply because he got the revelation who Jesus Christ is. A revelation that no papist or protestant understands even to this day. To you protestants and papists he is god the son which is a false god whom God the Father (The Only True God) will destroy together with god the holy ghost.

But to God's people, the christians, Jesus Christ is the Son of God! Blessed be the Name of the Lord.

>>855161

>Simply because he got the revelation who Jesus Christ is.

That really doesn't answer the question.

Why didn't Jesus change Thomas' name to Peter after Thomas said "my lord and my god"? Certainly he got the revelation who Jesus Christ is too.

Why did Jesus specifically rename Simon "rock" instead of literally anything else before referring to himself as "this rock."

>>855162

Because the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is the foundation rock of the faith. A foundation that all denominations scoff at. Let us stop going to church every sunday while living like the world monday-saturday and seek God in his Holy Word.

>>855164

it doesn't make any sense because you are not born from God's word. Flesh and blood cannot reveal this unto thee. This is why men seek to theologians and to the "original languages" and bible perversions instead of seeking God alone in his Word (KJV if you speak english) and getting the truth from him. You still don't understand that Jesus is the Son of God. Instead, you trust upon your corruptible carcass of Peter. You refuse to fall upon the Son of God. But the day will come when all who refuse to fall upon him will be ground to powder.

He that hath an ear to hear let him hear.

>>855157

The significance of Peter's name change is not diminished by the textual fact that he is not personally the rock. The consensus of the church fathers disagree with the catholic argument on this point, beyond the exegetical proofs.

https://carm.org/ecf-quotes-by-topic/early-church-fathers-quotes-on-peter-as-the-rock/

>>855166

Again, he that hath an ear to hear, let him hear. Either one will come to the truth, be born of the word of God, and obey the gospel to be saved or one will perish in his sins, vain traditions, and organized religion thinking that the word of God is precept upon precept.

I hope you two anons make the right choice in life. The time is nigh for his coming.

>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

>And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Farewell, anons.

>>855172

Jesus specifically addressed Simon Peter exclusively as "Simon son of Jonah" in verse 17. And in verse 18 Jesus addresses him as "Peter." Why then did not Jesus say: "Blessed art thou Cephas/Petros: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art." Moreover, Jesus did not say "bless art thou simon, … thou art simon and upon this rock I will…"

The name change here is important and cannot be waived away.

>Similarly, "this rock" refers directly to the confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

There is nothing in the text that links Peter's confession to being a rock.

Jesus did not say "Simon, you are Peter and your confession is the rock upon which I will build my church."

Jesus did not say "Simon you are peter and I am the rock upon which I will build my church."

Jesus said: "Simon you are Rock/Peter and upon this rock/Peter I will build my church.

Therefore it seems rather clear to me that Peter is the rock BY virtue of his confession. Not that his confession IS the rock.

The Petros/petra distinction is merely a quirk of Greek grammar. Peter is a man and thus Jesus used the masculine nominative form of the word.

>>855155

This has already been dealt with here:

>>855062

>>855063

>>855064

>>855065

>>855066

>>855067

>>855068

Council of Ephesus, Philip, Presbyter and Legate of Pope Celestine I

>We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle.

>There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom form our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.

>>855180

See >>855167 It applies to you as well. Come out of her… would that you had ears to hear. But alas, you do not. You cleave to your own dead gods, the “church fathers”. Their vain writings are your scriptures. Their writings mean nothing to the Lord Jesus Christ. You will perish if you continue like this. Your blood be upon your own head if you refuse to repent, anon. It would not surprise me if you knew the vain writings of the “church fathers” more than the Holy Word of God. I speak this to your shame.

> Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Farewell.

>>855182

The Bible proves the Papacy. Those who deny the Papacy, deny the office and position established by Jesus Christ Himself. When they attack the Papacy, they attack what God Himself instituted. Unless they humble themselves, accept the truth and convert to the true Catholic faith, outside of which there is no salvation, they will certainly be lost.

You are avoiding the conclusion of my argument through irrelevant quotations of Apocalypse and Proverbs. I will ask you the same as I did in the last thread: What relevance do you believe that the end times counter-church has to the Papacy and the authority of a true Pope?

>>855183

John 1:42

>ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

>And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

In John 1:42 we are told that the Greek name Πέτρος (Petros) is a translation, or interpretation, of Κηφᾶς (Cephas). Once again, the name of the Apostle in Greek, Πέτρος, is, according to John 1:42, a translation, or interpretation, of the name Κηφᾶς.

Now, Πέτρος is said to be a translation, or interpretation, of Κηφᾶς as Κηφᾶς comes from the Aramaic language. Κηφᾶς is a transliteration, and not a translation, of the Aramaic word Kēpha, which means rock. A translation is when a word in one language is given an equivalent meaning in a different language, e.g., the Aramaic Kēpha is translated into the Greek Πέτρος; a transliteration is when a word or name in one language is simply brought into a different language, but adjusted somewhat to make it look or sound like the other language, e.g., the Aramaic Kēpha is transliterated into the Greek Κηφᾶς, the Greek Κηφᾶς is transliterated into Latin and then transliterated into the English Cephas.

So, to put it simply, St. Peter's name, Πέτρος, is a translation of Κηφᾶς, which is a transliteration of the Aramaic Kēpha, which means rock. That John 1:42 connects the name of St. Peter to the Aramaic word for rock is another proof that St. Peter was the rock upon which the Church of Christ would be built, as Matthew 16 so clearly indicates. Jesus gave St. Peter a new name, which means rock, as St. Peter was to be the rock upon which the Church would be built.

It is absolutely deplorable that you would call one of the dear apostles of the lord, one of the saints in heaven “a rotting carcass”.

>>855194

All men will one day turn into rotting carcasses while the soul (if saved) goes to the Lord or to hell (if lost). That includes you and I.

>>855211

There was no name change. He was called Peter already since will before this point. What this was is an explanation of the name.

Now, when Jesus asks "who do you say that I am", the word you is plural; the question is addressed to all of the apostles. Peter alone answers for all of them, one of many times where he acts as spokesman of the Church. So when Jesus bestows upon him the name of Peter, it is not so much on him as a man but that which he in his person represents, the entire Christian Church, which provides upon this earth a rock, since it submits to the rock; the Lord Jesus Christ. So he was called Peter for confessing the rock, as he may be called a Christian for confessing Christ.

In its entire experience the constant defining quality of the Church, the foundation upon which the whole edifice is built, is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is for this truth that countless faithful Christians were willing to die down through the centuries, not for some overglorified tyrant king in an opulent palace.

>>855215

>There was no name change.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, *Simon son of Jonah!* For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.

18 And I tell you, *you are Peter,* and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

In verse 17, Jesus addresses the disciple as Simon. In verse 18, Jesus addresses the same apostle as Peter. Jesus changed the name by which he addressed the disciple. Jesus could have said: "You are Simon and on this rock I will build my church." But Jesus didn't.

>What this was is an explanation of the name.

Exactly. Jesus is explaining that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus will build his church.

>Peter alone answers for all of them, one of many times where he acts as spokesman of the Church. So when Jesus bestows upon him the name of Peter, it is not so much on him as a man but that which he in his person represents, the entire Christian Church

Man you are so close to getting it.

<which provides upon this earth a rock, since it submits to the rock; the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is where you lose me.

>So he was called Peter for confessing the rock, as he may be called a Christian for confessing Christ.

Then why is Thomas not also called "Rock" in John 20:28 for confessing "My Lord and my God?"

> the foundation upon which the whole edifice is built, is that Jesus is the Christ,

According to the Bible, the apostles and prophets are the foundation upon which the household of God is built. Eph 2:20. On the other hand, Jesus is the head of the body. Col 1:18 and Jesus is the cornerstone. Acts 4:11; Eph 2:20.

Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built His church, the apostolic foundation.

>>855217

>But Jesus didn't.

Of course He didn't, that would be meaningless. Why are you presuming to speak for Jesus and criticize Him for His choice of words? If you don't mind, I'll interpret the verse based on what He actually said, not on what He did not say.

>Exactly. Jesus is explaining that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus will build his church.

Is this really the best response you have?

>This is where you lose me.

And how telling it is that the part I lose you is the part where the Church submits to God rather than the other way around.

>Then why is Thomas not also called "Rock" in John 20:28 for confessing "My Lord and my God?"

Thomas does not speak for the Church

>Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built His church, the apostolic foundation.

I would like to point out for any observers who may have missed it that Anon is now arguing that Jesus Christ is NOT the foundation of the Christian faith, rather, the pope is.

<And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods

<Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

>>855218

>Of course He didn't, that would be meaningless. Why are you presuming to speak for Jesus and criticize Him for His choice of words? If you don't mind, I'll interpret the verse based on what He actually said, not on what He did not say.

Oh the irony. I am not presuming or critizing anything. I believe Jesus spoke everything he did carefully and with intention. Jesus must have meant something when he switched from addressing the disciple as Simon to addressing the disciple as Peter. I'm interpreting the Bible exactly based on what it says. I was merely showing you how you are being inconsistent with the text by giving examples of what Jesus did NOT say, the only things that make your interpretation consistent.

>Is this really the best response you have?

We can all tell you're getting frustrated because you know you've been exposed as a liar.

>And how telling it is that the part I lose you is the part where the Church submits to God rather than the other way around.

Not at all what I said. The Church, a rock, providing "upon Earth a rock" because "it submits to [another] rock" doesn't make any sense. How can a rock submit to a rock? You're really torturing the metaphors.

>Thomas does not speak for the Church

Exactly. And Peter does.

>Anon is now arguing that Jesus Christ is NOT the foundation of the Christian faith, rather, the pope is.

You are a liar. I never even used the word "Pope." Moreover, I quoted Scripture. Heck, I'll even quote the KJV for you:

Ephesians 2:

<19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

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

Acts 4:

<10 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.

<11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

If you have a problem with Scripture as it is written, that's on you.

>>855220

> How can a rock submit to a rock?

And because I know this is going to go over your head.

A rock submits to another rock by being underneath it. Kind of like how the cornerstone is placed on top of other rocks. Wait a second… Isn't someone in the Bible called the cornerstone?

>>855220

>Jesus must have meant something when he switched from addressing the disciple as Simon to addressing the disciple as Peter.

I'm not sure if you even bothered to read my exegesis of the text. I'm certain you didn't bother to understand it either way

>We can all tell you're getting frustrated because you know you've been exposed as a liar.

Yikes

>The Church, a rock, providing "upon Earth a rock" because "it submits to [another] rock" doesn't make any sense. How can a rock submit to a rock? You're really torturing the metaphors.

Ok, I'll make it easier for you.

The Church submits to Jesus Christ

There was that good or is it still too complicated for you?

>Exactly. And Peter does.

Yes, that was in fact my entire point. Glad we're on the same page

>You are a liar. I never even used the word "Pope."

Please, don't pretend like we don't know what you're saying.

>>855221

Gonna ignore this autism entirely and just explain when I said "submit" that was in reference specifically to its willingness to confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, something which the world refuses to do. (which, again, you would have known if you had paid attention)

>>855215

John 1:42 has been dealt with here: >>855185

All your other points have been dealt with here: >>855180

>>855229

>John 1:42 has been dealt with here

No, Anon, you did not "deal" with anything there. You do not appear to have done anything there except autistically repeat the words "Πέτρος, is a translation of Κηφᾶς, which is a transliteration of the Aramaic Kēpha, which means rock" and conclude that because he is called rock that Peter is a pope. In other words, your post told us nothing whatsoever except that Peter means rock and papists believe Peter was a pope. But don't worry, I'm sure your breakthrough will change the discussion for centuries to come.

As for the part where you "deal" with everything else you appear to actually be linking to more than half a dozen posts, all of which I'm sure are of a similar quality and intelligence.

>>855232

Persist then in sin and ignorance. For you have insulted those who have engaged with you, and refused to consider their points.

Matthew 16:18, in the context of the origin and meaning of the name Peter in John 1:42, can only be understood as Peter being the rock upon which Christ would build His Church. To argue otherwise begs the question of what would suffice as evidence to abandon your position.

If you are still unconvinced, then you can read:

>>855062 on the unfailing faith of St. Peter alone among the Apostles, and on the entrusting of the entire flock of Christ to St. Peter

>>855063 on the pre-eminence of St. Peter among the Apostles, and the prototype of Christ's Kingdom: the Davidic Monarchy

>>855064 >>855065 on the Councils of Jerusalem led by King David and by St. Peter

>>855066 >>855067 on the disciplinary measure of St. James and the dogmatic truth of St. Peter

>>855068 on the prototype of the Papacy: the Prime Minister of the Davidic Monarchy

>>855218

>I would like to point out for any observers who may have missed it that Anon is now arguing that Jesus Christ is NOT the foundation of the Christian faith, rather, the pope is.

How so? That's a pretty serious charge to make.

>>855237

Read the discussion my brother, look at what he said and what it was in reply to

Jesus: "Who do people say The Son of Man is ?"

Disciples: "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

Jesus: "But what about you (my disciples)… who do you say I am ?"

Simōn Petros (speaking for the disciples): "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God"

Jesus: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for THIS was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven…

… And I tell you, you are Petros (a rock), and on THIS rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…

… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

~~~~~~~

So if it isn't readily apparent that Christ is using the rhetorical device of a play on words with Petros' name, comparing it with the Rock of Faith that Christ will build His church on, so as to hold this lesson in their minds; do you at least agree that Peter is speaking on behalf of the disciples as to a shared belief they all hold ?

He's their spokesman in that moment and Peter is relaying to Christ the faith they hold in common, isn't he ?

So do you object to God-given revelation of Jesus' Messiahship being the foundation of the Church, and instead hold that Peter is the object being described as the foundation of the Church ?

Really ?

Then you are stumbling over the rock of offence who is Christ Jesus - rejecting Him as the true 'corner stone'.

>>855251

Are you arguing that the object of verse 17 is not the revelation?

If these two sentences were disjointed ideas He would not have said "upon this the rock" (taute te petra), Jesus would have said "you the rock" or something similar.

If you remove "the rock" it still makes grammatical sense

>This was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this I will build my church

"The rock" we can agree is part of the building metaphor, and Peter's Christian name has to do with that metaphor. The grammar does not demonstrate that Peter is himself the rock.

>>855253

>Are you arguing that the object of verse 17 is not the revelation?

No. I am arguing the object of verse 18 is not the same object of verse 17. The previous posted connected an English translation interpolation "THIS" in verse 17 as the same "THIS" that appears in verse 18 to demonstrate it refers to the confession in verse 16. This is inconsistent with the text.

>Jesus would have said "you the rock" or something similar.

"sy ei Petros" "You are Rock" sounds pretty similar to me.

>The grammar does not demonstrate that Peter is himself the rock.

It seems to me the grammar does not demonstrate the confession is the rock either. Which is all I was trying to point out.

>>855254

The grammar does indicate the rock is the confession, the same object as verse 17. The confession and the revelation are the same thing, since he confessed what was revealed to him.

This is also an attested reading in the early church fathers.

>>855256

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics

>Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?

Letter of Clement to James

>Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter.

Origen, Homilies on Exodus 5:4

>Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]

St. Cyprian of Carthage

>There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.

St. Jerome, Letters

>I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails.

St. Augustine

>If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John

>Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.

>>855258

Cool, you can paste cherry picked quotes from churchfathers.org

The last two of your quotes do not demonstrate the point.

Here are some other quotations that undeniably prove there were mixed opinions on this topic among the fathers

https://carm.org/ecf-quotes-by-topic/early-church-fathers-quotes-on-peter-as-the-rock/

>>855259

There were mixed points of view, but the point is that they dont contradict eachother in the sense that peter was the rock in the strict sense or the confession of faith and by extensio every believer the rock in the most general sense.

>>855265

They contradict. Peter was himself the rock or he was not.

>>855268

Why was he the rock? Because of his confession of faith. So every believer who confesses participates in that archetype who is Peter. Now I dare say show me a Church Father who excludes either interpretation.

>>855269

Are you reading what I'm saying?

The linked fathers say the rock in question is not Peter. Other fathers cited say the rock was Peter.

>>855157

Proving Peter was the rock does not prove papist claims.

You can have a cyprianic interpretation of every bishop holding the office of Peter.

The church fathers on this were on the majority view that either Christ is the rock(Origen, Jerome, Augustine when they actually are exegeting the passage years after they wrote the papist prooftexts of them stating the Peter=rock.) view or Peter's confession is the rock

Just as Petrus/Cephas is derived from Petra/Kepha, so is Peter/Petrus/Kephas built on the Rock/Petra/Kepha. This view is found in Origen, Jerome, Augustine, etc.

I would rather follow the church fathers on this than a church that has been in constant enemity with the scripture's being sufficient for equipping the man of God for every good work

>>855258

Absolute state of e-caths that don't know anything other than churchfathers.org

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-church-fathers-interpretation-of-the-rock-of-matthew-1618-an-historical-refutation-of-the-claims-of-roman-catholicism-by-william-webster/

>>855244

Yeah the wordplay of petra and petrus to signify something more than petrus = petra is attested by church fathers.

Just as petrus is derived from petra, so is Petrus built on the petra which is Christ.