• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Matthew 16, what was revealed to Peter

Carbon

Admin
Joined
May 19, 2023
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
3,978
Points
113
Location
New England
Faith
Reformed
Country
USA
Marital status
Married
Politics
Conservative
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17.

Exactly what was revealed, and why?

A RC asked my thoughts on this, I believe he was trying to connect, and prove, sacred Tradition here. Does this prove that God still reveals new info to people, namely his church?
 
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17.

Exactly what was revealed, and why?

A RC asked my thoughts on this, I believe he was trying to connect, and prove, sacred Tradition here. Does this prove that God still reveals new info to people, namely his church?

Even if He did, at that time the NT was not even written.
 
Even if He did, at that time the NT was not even written.
Right. And this is one of the things my Catholic friend was referring to. Since the NT wasn't written yet, is this a form of Tradition and God communicating with His church?

Or what exactly is the meaning behind this?
 
I am hoping for some contributions to this thread. Hopefully, we all agree context is of the utmost importance.
 
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17.

Exactly what was revealed, and why?

That the Christ, is the Son of the living God. (Matthew 16:16)
Which is confirmed (and supported) by the rest of the NT.

RC's teachings (many of them) are not.
 
It seems to me that tradition has little to do with this, though God no doubt uses tradition as he uses all things, to work good in some, and hardness or even an occasion of stumbling in others. Tradition is useful, but of no authority.
 
It seems to me that tradition has little to do with this, though God no doubt uses tradition as he uses all things, to work good in some, and hardness or even an occasion of stumbling in others. Tradition is useful, but of no authority.
I agree
 
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17.

Exactly what was revealed, and why?

A RC asked my thoughts on this, I believe he was trying to connect, and prove, sacred Tradition here. Does this prove that God still reveals new info to people, namely his church?
I'm thinking Peter understood Jesus was God.
 
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17.

Exactly what was revealed, and why?

A RC asked my thoughts on this, I believe he was trying to connect, and prove, sacred Tradition here. Does this prove that God still reveals new info to people, namely his church?
I would offer.

Revealed .The will of the father "inspiration to mankind" .

Why. . .So we could hear or father . Called the hearing of faith or believing God not seen

Catholiscim says so they can hear Peter as the key that unlocks gates of hell .Therefore usurping the power of the our "invisible Father" and giving it over to dying mankind Peter our brother in the lord .

Peter the key or foundation of Catholicism . . worship dying flesh and blood.

No Peter the bottom drops. . out. . no Catholiscim

The bible God's witness was made perfect over two thousand years ago Two warning working as one to protect the integrity of the Living word .of our invisible Holy Father

One do not change the meaning of one word it can change the authorship .(Deuterroomy4:2) And a warning at the end not to add or subtract from the whole book of prophecy or called book of law sealed it with 7 seal till the end of time .

Its sacred for them to add . If no adding and subtracting Catholicism is made to no effect

In that way no man can serve two invisible teaching masters as our one invisible Holy Father

Cant serve the Bible as book of law (sola scriptura) and the oral traditons the cathodic Bible called the CCC (sola legions of fathers) dying mankind that some call patron saints (3500 and rising

The Catholic Bible, (sola I heard it through the legion of fathers grape vine) called sacred traditions of dying sinners . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." 40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age". 41

Therefore making Peter our brother in the Lord a serial denier and used as a warning of what not to do, make the word of God without effect. by worshiping /venerating our brother Peter rather than the invisible head the Holy Father . Yoked with him daily burdens can be lighter with a living future hope beyond the grave

In John 21 Just being reinstated for denying Christ again . Peter went to town to falsely prophecy. . saying John would never die. ( A Catholic tradition )

Jesus rebuked Peter and infallibly informed him .If every time he had to reveal the lies of what some call sacred traditons of dying mankind we would need a bigger planet to hold the volumes upon volumes. Bigger than the Vatican library filled with what some call scared oral tradition of dying mankind .

John 21:23-25 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

I would ask how many volumes are needed to cover this planet"

I would think after being forgiven for blasphemy against the Son of man, Jesus in Mathew 16 it would of been enough warning .The second the rooster crow (guilty blasphemy ) The third in John 21 .Three is used in that way to show the end of a matter . ..you could say lesson over

Christians worship the unseen Holy Father that worked, poured out His Eternal Spirit in jeapordy of His own on dying flesh i . . . yoked with the Son of man to both reveal his will and empower dying making to do it to his good pleasure alone.

Not dying mankind as a legion of fathers (3500 and rising) That some call patron saints
 
Not sacred tradition that is the oral teaching of the apostles
Example 1 cor 11:23

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you

What Peter received as well as JTB in Lk 3:2 as divine tradition, not unlike Abraham, Noah and Moses!

Truth of divine revelation is communicated in many ways!

By the heavens: Ps 19:1
By the Father: Matt 16:17
By Christ in person: Matt 5:2 Mk 1:21-22 Lk 5:3 Jn 3:16
By the Holy Spirit: 1 Tim 4:1
By the call of God: Gen 12:1
By the burning bush: Ex 3:2
By Sacred Scripture: Lk 24:32
By Sacred Tradition: 2 thes 2:15
By the apostles preaching the word:
Acts 8:4 Acts 8:35
By Christ’s command that the apostolic churches teaches all men unto eternal salvation: Matt 28:19
By the Angels: Ex 3:2 Matt 1:20
Lk 1:28 Acts 8:26
By dreams: Matt 1:20
By visions: Acts 19:17
By unknown means: Lk 3:2
By preaching of John the Baptist: Lk 3:3-5

Not by “Scripture alone”!

Scripture? Yes
Scripture alone? No!
Scripture & Tradition? Yes
 
Is the “word of God” after the ascension of Christ limited to scripture alone?
 
That the Christ, is the Son of the living God. (Matthew 16:16)
Which is confirmed (and supported) by the rest of the NT.

RC's teachings (many of them) are not.
What teachings?
 
And so, we began to pray to her using several expressions present in the Gospels directed to her: “full of grace”, “blessed are you among women” (cf. CCC, 2676s.).

Yep, RC's pray to Mary.

This is blasphemous.
As the Protestants always say: “all glory unto God” rightly so cos God is the source of all grace and blessing!
 
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:17.

Exactly what was revealed, and why?
The Messianic nature of Jesus.
A RC asked my thoughts on this, I believe he was trying to connect, and prove, sacred Tradition here. Does this prove that God still reveals new info to people, namely his church?
No. There is nothing in the verse, or its immediately surrounding text reporting anything other than Jesus building his ecclesia, will continue. Given prior and subsequent information, we can reasonably infer God reveals information to people, as He did on that occasion but that is not justification for a group of men, or a religious institution, laying claim to Peter's experience. In the example of the Jerusalem council, we see they did not receive a mass revelation from God but, instead, arrived at a decision through debate and prayer and..... on that occasion Peter proved to one of those in dissent, not the leader of the prevailing point of view. Furthermore, Peter later acted in a manner overtly contrary to the decision of the council (see Acts 15:1-35 and Gal. 2:1-22). Based on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 1:10-13, we have some evidence Peter directly or incorrectly contributed to early seeds of sectarianism. I suppose there is a certain irony to this being an inquiry from an RC because the RCC is still teaching things that are not whole-scripture and treating people differently.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome," but Peter was never the bishop of Rome, and were he the bishop of Rome he did not have authority over the Jerusalem council, and were he the bishop of Rome the episodes described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 show he was not perfect in his practical administration of the gospel. Still, the RCC makes a fairly reasonable case for treating Peter is the preeminent apostle and leader of the Church (see HERE, HERE, and HERE). I simply do not find the scriptures, nor the way the RCC compiles the scriptures, justification for what we currently observe. I suppose there is another irony currently present in the RCC because the current Pope does not appear to hold Tradition or tradition with the preeminence expressed in the CCC.

The "this" in Matthew 16:17 is, "You are the Mesiha, the Son of the living God." (Matthew was written in Aramaic, not Greek, and Aramaic was the common language in that region in that era. Had they been speaking in Hebrew; Matthew would still have recorded it in Aramaic). I think it is also worth adding there is still a paradox involved in all this, too, because Cephas (Kephas in Aramaic) was not much of a rock, especially when not actively guided by the HS. His sermon at Pentecost is brilliant, but he's under the control of the HS on that day. From the day Jesus calls Peter to the last mention of his name in Paul's epistolary Peter is a vacillating individual, one prone to substantive brilliance and substantive error (on occasion, both simultaneously). Debate ensues over the claim "petra" means "small" rock" but that's incorrect (it can mean a rock of any size), and the argument, therefore a faulty one that misses the implied paradox of Jesus' words. At the time of Jesus renaming Simon, Peter was not a rock. Simon means, "hearing," and Kephas means "rock," so Simon Peter would be the "hearing rock." I can imagine Jesus smiled and winked at Simon when he said those words and Peter understood the joke.

The point being, as I said earlier, what was revealed was Jesus as the anointed one of God. Nothing more.
 
Back
Top