What is the rock?

[Illuminator]

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Matthew 16:23 is a favorite worn out anti-Peter argument found on every forum on the internet. Obviously, Peter knew the hostile climate in Jerusalem was dangerous for Jesus, and didn't want Him to suffer. Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.
Then Jesus does what? He teaches on redemptive suffering ("pick up your cross and follow Me...") a teaching totally absent in your privatized system.

 

[David1701]

Agreed. "the Rock" can be all three, but recent Protestant scholarship points to the grammar of Peter being the Rock as more correct.

It can't be Peter, since Jesus clearly distinguished between Peter and the Rock.

Matt. 16:18 (LITV) And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her.

In the Greek, Peter is "Petros" (a piece of stone); whereas, rock is "Petra" (a massive bedrock). The Rock is Christ, upon whom the Assembly is built.

 

[ChristB4us]

Not all translations of Scripture agree. Some have it rendered "You will be called Cephas, which when translated is Peter."

I reckon you have to discern with Him Whom is that chief cornerstone?

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens 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; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Peter even said so.

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

We are all living stones but the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on is the Lord Jesus Christ; not Peter.

No, I do not "see" at all. Jesus clearly tells Peter that he will give him the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

You think Jesus only has one copy of those keys or something--that if he gives them to Peter, he no longer has them? Peter is analogous to the "Prime Minister." He does not bind and loose or use the keys independently from Christ. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand here or why you insist on making this more complicated than it is.

Brother, do consider the other disciples that were there with Peter as Jesus was saying that to all of them.

Matthew 16:19 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. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

We have another reference where He gives that key that does those things of binding and loosing to all believers for when two or three are in agreement when we pray.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Do consider that with Jesus in prayer to see that truth.

 

[ChristB4us]

Modern day tainted education? Your private opinion of "actual scripture" trumps a long list of PROTESTANT scholars and reference manuals using "actual scripture"?? That makes no sense. The only authority you accept is your own, a biproduct of "sola scriptura", an unworkable, unhistorical self defeating man made tradition invented by Martin Luther, who was mentally ill and angry with the Pope. If you want to defend "Bible alone" theology, (which has no defense), start another thread. The topic is Peter the Rock, not your 'infallible' opinions that rules out scholarship.

"actual scripture" clearly indicates Peter as leader of the Apostles. Once that is established, using "actual scripture", then Peter as leader of the Universal Church naturally follows.

Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

No. It just so happened that way. They had come across Peter first. It could have been any of His disciples. Look at what had actually happened.

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

They did not address Peter as if by some title for why they were coming to him for. And when Peter took them to Jesus, Jesus prevented Peter by asking him a question. So was this something Peter always had done? Wasa he really in authority for the tax collectors to be approaching him for? Not by the way Jesus responded to him about.

If Peter was the leader of the apostles, would you think Paul would follow peter's example rather than stand up to him to his ace for sepaating himself from the Gentiles when the Jews that believe in Jesus Christ had come?

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

So I do not see Peter as the leader of the apostles as much as you had tried with that list of scriptural references "inferring" such a thing as I am sure the Catholic Church liked to read that teaching of theirs into the text for apostolic succession.

The thing you should consider is that both Peter & Paul were executed in Rome. You have to wonder how the church ever got built in Rome unless they had to do some compromises to avoid persecution & death about Jesus Christ being the only way to God for salvation.

The first Pope Clement has written a letter to the Corinthians churches to shame them for refusing to give a portion of their bounty to his collectors from Rome. He gave a lot of scripture and it is hard to see what he was trying to do but he did accuse them of envy & jealousy for why the churches were refusing to give a portion from the bounty to his collectors from Rome.

The only reason they are pushing for that title as the Vicar of Christ is to rule over other churches out of covetousness. And so you have to wonder about all the practices within the RCC as if created to make believers slaves to the system in keeping them coming to fleece from.

So if you really believe Peter is the Head of the Church and not Christ Jesus still, then heed Peters words rather than the RCC. If you believe Peter is the one that builds His church, then was he negligent? Why is there only two epistles from Peter? Why is none of the other epistles regard Peter as the head of the church or even address him as the leader of the apostles and yet we have scriptures explaining why he is not.

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 4:15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Ephesians 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

A Vicar is a bishop of a church and yet we have no such epistle designating a church in any area as founded by Peter.

And yet Peter was driven by the Lord to be a minister to the Jews in reaching them with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Looks to me that the RCC wrested the scriptures to make Peter look like the head of the church at Rome when Peter never was.

Paul was the one that founded the church at Rome, being the minister to the Gentiles. Check with the Book of Romans.

 

[Illuminator]

No. It just so happened that way. They had come across Peter first. It could have been any of His disciples. Look at what had actually happened.

Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

They did not address Peter as if by some title for why they were coming to him for. And when Peter took them to Jesus, Jesus prevented Peter by asking him a question. So was this something Peter always had done? Wasa he really in authority for the tax collectors to be approaching him for? Not by the way Jesus responded to him about.

If Peter was the leader of the apostles, would you think Paul would follow peter's example rather than stand up to him to his ace for sepaating himself from the Gentiles when the Jews that believe in Jesus Christ had come?

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

So I do not see Peter as the leader of the apostles as much as you had tried with that list of scriptural references "inferring" such a thing as I am sure the Catholic Church liked to read that teaching of theirs into the text for apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is a living legacy, a pedigree, if you will, and it's off topic.

The thing you should consider is that both Peter & Paul were executed in Rome. You have to wonder how the church ever got built in Rome unless they had to do some compromises to avoid persecution & death about Jesus Christ being the only way to God for salvation.

So now you claim Peter and Paul compromised with the pagan Romans to stay alive? What shocks me is how stupid such a claim is.

The first Pope Clement has written a letter to the Corinthians churches to shame them for refusing to give a portion of their bounty to his collectors from Rome. He gave a lot of scripture and it is hard to see what he was trying to do but he did accuse them of envy & jealousy for why the churches were refusing to give a portion from the bounty to his collectors from Rome.

Clement was the 4th pope, and you should quote Clement instead of making things up. Corinth is far from Rome, and Clement is exercising jurisdiction that is nowhere near Rome due to his universal jurisdiction, which you deny.

The only reason they are pushing for that title as the Vicar of Christ is to rule over other churches out of covetousness. And so you have to wonder about all the practices within the RCC as if created to make believers slaves to the system in keeping them coming to fleece from.

This is a disgusting insult, based on psychosis, not reality.

So if you really believe Peter is the Head of the Church and not Christ Jesus still,

Stop right there. You create a false dichotomy with the authority of Jesus and the authority of Peter, who gets his authority from Jesus. Because you don't get it, you have to make up nonsense and insults.

then heed Peters words rather than the RCC. If you believe Peter is the one that builds His church, then was he negligent?

No, we believe Christ builds the Church on Peter. Christ builds the Church,
Christ builds the Church,
Christ builds the Church. I have to repeat myself because you have been programmed. Peter does not build the Church.

Why is there only two epistles from Peter? Why is none of the other epistles regard Peter as the head of the church or even address him as the leader of the apostles and yet we have scriptures explaining why he is not.

The Virgin Birth is supported by 2 verses. Should we reject that for lack of volume???

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 4:15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Ephesians 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

These verses are irrelevant to Peter's primacy. Christ is head of the Church in heaven and on earth. That has always been Catholic teaching the so called 'reformers" borrowed from us.

A Vicar is a bishop of a church and yet we have no such epistle designating a church in any area as founded by Peter.

So what? We have no epistle supporting sola scriptura or the canon of scripture. Scripture mentions "bishops" and "churches" so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the two together. Was there ever a church founded without a bishop? The answer is NO.

And yet Peter was driven by the Lord to be a minister to the Jews in reaching them with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Looks to me that the RCC wrested the scriptures to make Peter look like the head of the church at Rome when Peter never was.

Looks to me you ignored the long list of scripture indicating that Peter was leader of the Apostles, so it logically follows that Peter was head of the Universal Church. "Vicar" means ambassador, representative or servant. it does not mean "dominating dictator", a notion propagated by the Christian Taliban. Now we have to resort to dictionary games because you don't understand English.

Paul was the one that founded the church at Rome, being the minister to the Gentiles. Check with the Book of Romans.

Paul never supplanted Peter's authority; they were not competitors. They were both martyred in Rome, so they must have been there establishing a church IN Rome, not OF Rome. Professional liars like Dave Hunt can't make the distinction between pagan Rome and Christian Rome. That mindset dominates funnymentalism. Furthermore, Paul went to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was the same as theirs, (Acts 2) NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

 

[Romishpopishorganist]

I reckon you have to discern with Him Whom is that chief cornerstone?

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens 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; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Peter even said so.

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

We are all living stones but the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on is the Lord Jesus Christ; not Peter.

Brother, do consider the other disciples that were there with Peter as Jesus was saying that to all of them.

Matthew 16:19 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. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

We have another reference where He gives that key that does those things of binding and loosing to all believers for when two or three are in agreement when we pray.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Do consider that with Jesus in prayer to see that truth.

"Brother," I don't understand why you think the above refutes my argument.

I explicitly maintained in my posts that Jesus is the ultimate Rock in the Church. I said Peter is more like the Prime Minister. Of course Jesus is the King and the ultimate source of all power and authority in the Church.

When you read a post--you need to read all of the post before you hit reply.

 

[ChristB4us]

Apostolic succession is a living legacy, a pedigree, if you will, and it's off topic.

Why did you made that reference to Peter being the "leader" of the apostles then? To me, you started it.

So now you claim Peter and Paul compromised with the pagan Romans to stay alive? What shocks me is how stupid such a claim is.

No. I am trying to say that the RCC are in no way affiliated with Peter & Paul, otherwise they would be executed along with them. So how did they survive? By making compromises.

Clement was the 4th pope, and you should quote Clement instead of making things up. Corinth is far from Rome, and Clement is exercising jurisdiction that is nowhere near Rome due to his universal jurisdiction, which you deny.

Well thank you for the correction but he was the first one to be covetous in trying to get all the churches to give a portion to his collectors from Rome. Clement was writing because of the "sedition" from envy & jealousy from those churches not willing to give to his collectors from Rome.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Chapter I.-The Salutation. Praise of the Corinthians Before the Breaking Forth of Schism Among Them.

Second paragraph

"Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;(2) and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.(3)"

Chapter V.-No Less Evils Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.(24) Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.(25) Let us set before our eyes the illustrious(26) apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity,(27) compelled(28) to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,(29) and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.(30) Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Chapter XXXIV.-Great is the Reward of Good Works with God. Joined Together in Harmony, Let Us Implore that Reward from Him.

"The good servant(138) receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work."(139) He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this,(140) that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. "

 

[ChristB4us]

This is a disgusting insult, based on psychosis, not reality.

Reality should be based in scripture and if none of the epistles even mention the title of the Vicar of Christ, why heed it?

Stop right there. You create a false dichotomy with the authority of Jesus and the authority of Peter, who gets his authority from Jesus. Because you don't get it, you have to make up nonsense and insults.

Jesus is the Word of God that is the authority for why Peter had to submit to the word of God when Paul confronted him of his error to repent.

No, we believe Christ builds the Church on Peter. Christ builds the Church,
Christ builds the Church,
Christ builds the Church. I have to repeat myself because you have been programmed. Peter does not build the Church.

Peter is not the chief cornerstone.

And the doctrine of apostolic succession is about the direct line of succession from the first apostles of Jesus Christ and later on as if designated to Peter for continuing the work of Christ in His church.

apostolic succession <---- reads to me like building His church by confirming church members, ordain priests, and consecrate bishops to rule over the clergy & the church members through their diocese.

What do you call it?

The Virgin Birth is supported by 2 verses. Should we reject that for lack of volume???

Lack of volume per the example you gave about the virgin Mary? There isn't any volume at all about Peter being the leader of the church.

These verses are irrelevant to Peter's primacy. Christ is head of the Church in heaven and on earth. That has always been Catholic teaching the so called 'reformers" borrowed from us.

Truth is Christ is the Head of every believer and not Peter; not even then.

So what? We have no epistle supporting sola scriptura or the canon of scripture. Scripture mentions "bishops" and "churches" so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the two together. Was there ever a church founded without a bishop? The answer is NO.

You want to avoid being deceived? Here is how.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Looks to me you ignored the long list of scripture indicating that Peter was leader of the Apostles, so it logically follows that Peter was head of the Universal Church. "Vicar" means ambassador, representative or servant. it does not mean "dominating dictator", a notion propagated by the Christian Taliban. Now we have to resort to dictionary games because you don't understand English.

The very first reference did not prove anything to what you are trying to infer from and so I suspect the rest to be the same as copied and pasted from somewhere else that I suspect that YOU did not bother to look at them either.

Paul never supplanted Peter's authority; they were not competitors. They were both martyred in Rome, so they must have been there establishing a church IN Rome, not OF Rome. Professional liars like Dave Hunt can't make the distinction between pagan Rome and Christian Rome. That mindset dominates funnymentalism. Furthermore, Paul went to Peter, James and John to make sure his gospel was the same as theirs, (Acts 2) NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Never heard of Dave Hunt, but notice how you are defending a church at Rome rather than the faith in Jesus Christ which is what a disciple of Jesus Christ is supposed to do. We are not called to be defenders of our faith in a church, not even a Protestant church for they can go astray too and they have. The word of God says so. That is how you know... by the scriptures. So prove everything by the KJV scriptures with Jesus Christ.

 

[ChristB4us]

"Brother," I don't understand why you think the above refutes my argument.

I explicitly maintained in my posts that Jesus is the ultimate Rock in the Church. I said Peter is more like the Prime Minister. Of course Jesus is the King and the ultimate source of all power and authority in the Church.

When you read a post--you need to read all of the post before you hit reply.

I reckon my applying your statement as if Peter alone was given the keys of binding and loosing, when he was not when there were other disciples there, was why I was seeing you inferring Peter as the builder of "the church" from which I gathered apostolic succession from the RCC was trying to base its validity upon and thus why they were seeing Peter as that "rock" that the church was built upon.

Mayhap some clarity on your part for how you can see Peter as being the only one given that keys, does not align with what the RCC was trying to build from for apostolic succession of Peter being that "rock".

 

[Romishpopishorganist]

I reckon my applying your statement as if Peter alone was given the keys of binding and loosing, when he was not when there were other disciples there, was why I was seeing you inferring Peter as the builder of "the church" from which I gathered apostolic succession from the RCC was trying to base its validity upon and thus why they were seeing Peter as that "rock" that the church was built upon.

The other apostles were given binding and loosing authority. They were the first bishops, leaders of the Church. Peter alone was given the keys of the Kingdom, however. Thus, the apostles work as one; they do not bind and loose independently of Peter.

Note that the papacy was given to the Church, with Peter being the first pope--for the purposes of maintaining unity of Faith. That is the essence of the papacy. What you see Peter doing in the Bible, that is what the pope is for today. What you see the apostles doing, that is what the bishops are for today. They also maintain unity of Faith in their respective dioceses and they work in concert with the pope.

I fully grant that the papacy has trappings today that aren't scriptural. In my opinion, the papacy has become top heavy--it dominates the Church. Reform is needed. The office, however, is biblical. The core of the office is for the maintaining of unity of Faith.

In Revelation, 21:14 we are told that the apostles are the foundation of the Church wall of, the New Jerusalem. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Does this mean that Jesus cannot be the rock? Of course not. Does this mean Jesus cannot be the foundation of the Church? Of course not. These are metaphors.

What I do not understand is why Protestants insist on false dichotomies--if Peter is the rock, somehow, for some reason, this means in the Protestant mind that Jesus cannot be the Rock or that somehow, for some reason, this means that Peter's "rockiness" undermines that of Christ.

Mayhap some clarity on your part for how you can see Peter as being the only one given that keys, does not align with what the RCC was trying to build from for apostolic succession of Peter being that "rock".

The other apostles were given binding and loosing authority, but only Peter was given the keys. That is a fact.

 

[donadams]

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.

We’re not speaking about the rock of salvation but rock which the savior builds the church or other words the one appointed by Christ to govern the church until his return

 

[ChristB4us]

The other apostles were given binding and loosing authority. They were the first bishops, leaders of the Church. Peter alone was given the keys of the Kingdom, however. Thus, the apostles work as one; they do not bind and loose independently of Peter.

Since they do not all travel together, example, Peter & John were travelling together in Acts 8 to join Philip in Samaria, that last comment in your quote cannot be true. Certainly Paul was an apostle and he was not travelling with Peter and certainly had written epistles to churches without any additional witness of Peter in those epistles as if granting authority in Paul's binding or loosing in the ministry to the churches, especially concerning the brother that was a fornicator in 1 Corinthians 5th chapter to have him excommunicated. Something to pray about.

Note that the papacy was given to the Church, with Peter being the first pope--for the purposes of maintaining unity of Faith. That is the essence of the papacy. What you see Peter doing in the Bible, that is what the pope is for today. What you see the apostles doing, that is what the bishops are for today. They also maintain unity of Faith in their respective dioceses and they work in concert with the pope.

Can't find that in any scripture in the N.T.

I fully grant that the papacy has trappings today that aren't scriptural. In my opinion, the papacy has become top heavy--it dominates the Church. Reform is needed. The office, however, is biblical. The core of the office is for the maintaining of unity of Faith.

Which is why you should suspect it as an apostate church from the beginning of its inception as being identified as the RCC.

In Revelation, 21:14 we are told that the apostles are the foundation of the Church wall of, the New Jerusalem. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Does this mean that Jesus cannot be the rock? Of course not. Does this mean Jesus cannot be the foundation of the Church? Of course not. These are metaphors.

In any of the address to the futuristic 7 churches, none of them were called to yield to the authority of the RCC for the unity of the faith.

There is nothing metaphorical about the church of Peter in the Book of Revelation at all albeit some have inferred mystery Babylon of the woman that sits on the seven hills is the Vatican.

What I do not understand is why Protestants insist on false dichotomies--if Peter is the rock, somehow, for some reason, this means in the Protestant mind that Jesus cannot be the Rock or that somehow, for some reason, this means that Peter's "rockiness" undermines that of Christ.

I believe the Protestant believes Jesus is the rock for why they are challenging Peter for being that rock that Jesus was talking about that the church was built upon and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Jesus died, descended and rise form the dead, and ascended to Heaven and so has the keys of hell and death. It is not a big mystery that Jesus was adding to Peter's testimony about Himself and what He is going to do as that rock.

The other apostles were given binding and loosing authority, but only Peter was given the keys. That is a fact.

Peter was not the only one in the room when Jesus said that as the other disciples were there.

As for this reference below, the binding and losing is given to every believer for disciplining others by the word of God and for when 2 or 3 come together in agreement in praying.

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So the binding and loosing authority is by the word of God.

 

[donadams]

Try Isa 22:21-22 Matt 16:17-19
Matt 10:2 Jn 20:21 Matt 28:19
And many more
Thanks

 

[donadams]

Matt 16:18-19 shall not prevail the holy apostolic church founded by Christ endures till his return Matt 28:19 acts 1:8

To attack the church is to attack Christ
Christ and his church are one!
Acts 9:4 eph 5:32
Thanks

 

[Illuminator]

Which is why you should suspect it as an apostate church from the beginning of its inception as being identified as the RCC.

Protestantism borrowed wholesale many Catholic teachings, things like the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, So if the CC is as wrong as you say it is, then so are you.

 

[ChristB4us]

Protestantism borrowed wholesale many Catholic teachings, things like the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, So if the CC is as wrong as you say it is, then so are you.

Just because the RCC mentions Jesus Christ, does not mean Jesus Christ is not the Saviour either.

The Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons use His name too but what are they teaching in light of Him?

It is what RCC is teaching; if Peter built the church then why are there not any Catholic teaching as directly coming from what Peter has taught? If Peter was given that responsibility, why are there more epistles to that effect coming from Peter rather than Paul?

So it looks to me that the beginnings of the RCC was wresting scripture to have government over Christians from Rome.

Does that mean all Catholics are in hell? No, because they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God raised him from the dead and in according to His words, they are saved even though the RCC has succeeded in misleading the Catholics to believe otherwise for why they are slaves to the RCC.

When Catholics see the RCC for what it is, a rip off done by covetous power ego tripping maniacs, God shall lead the believers to leave the church.

 

[Illuminator]

Just because the RCC mentions Jesus Christ, does not mean Jesus Christ is not the Saviour either.

Protestantism borrowed wholesale many Catholic teachings, things like the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, So if the CC is as wrong as you say it is, then so are you. Deal with it. Your statement is either denial or avoidance of the quote.

The Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons use His name too but what are they teaching in light of Him?

It is what RCC is teaching; if Peter built the church then why are there not any Catholic teaching as directly coming from what Peter has taught? If Peter was given that responsibility, why are there more epistles to that effect coming from Peter rather than Paul?

Nonsense like this is so annoying. The CC never taught Peter builds the Church. Care to tell me who you learned that lie from? It is a historical fact that Peter and Paul founded the Church IN Rome, not OF Rome. Jesus builds the Church on the ROCK, no matter what buzz words you use to define it. Jesus doesn't build junk to later need a re-build.

So it looks to me that the beginnings of the RCC was wresting scripture to have government over Christians from Rome.

Anti-Catholicism is mostly a socialization process, much the same as racism. It's the last acceptable prejudice and just as ugly.

Does that mean all Catholics are in hell? No, because they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God raised him from the dead and in according to His words, they are saved even though the RCC has succeeded in misleading the Catholics to believe otherwise for why they are slaves to the RCC.

You're a slave to 16th politics and worn out outdated arguments that have been refuted a million times. One just has to be familiar with what they are and where to find them. Here's a good start. Just brows the list, and pick one.

Anti-Catholicism (Index Page For Apologist Dave Armstrong)

Collection of papers by Dave Armstrong refuting anti-Catholicism: the absurd, self-defeating notions that Catholicism is not Christianity at all.

www.patheos.com

When Catholics see the RCC for what it is, a rip off done by covetous power ego tripping maniacs, God shall lead the believers to leave the church.

Then tell me why your best Protestant scholars and ministers have come home to Rome?

Conversion Stories Archives - The Coming Home Network

chnetwork.org

covetous power ego tripping maniacs

So you like preaching Seventh Day Adventism? That might explain your difficulty with the Nicene Creed. You are fanning the fires of hate and not even aware you are doing it.

‘Staggering’ rise in anti-Catholic hate in Canada​

Canadian and international observers are condemning media, politicians and other opinion leaders for turning a blind eye to a startling new report that shows a 260-per-cent increase in anti-Catholic hate crimes in the past year.
The increase is almost 10 times higher than for all hate crimes combined and was by far the single largest percentage growth recorded in any category in the numbers released by Statistics Canada.
At the same time, experts and activists are also calling for Catholics to more forcefully respond to the sort of prejudice and bias that the media-blackout epitomizes.

 

[Illuminator]

When Catholics see the RCC for what it is, a rip off done by covetous power ego tripping maniacs, God shall lead the believers to leave the church.

The charity and health centers run by covetous power hungry ego tripping maniacs around the world include:

• 5,245 hospitals, mostly in Africa (1,418) and America (1,362);
• 14,963 dispensaries, mainly in Africa (5,307), in America (4,043);
• 532 Care homes for people with leprosy, mainly in Asia (269) and Africa (201);
• 15,429 Homes for the elderly, chronically ill or disabled, mainly in Europe (8,031) and America (3,642);
• 9,374 orphanages, mainly in Asia (3,233) and Europe (2,247);
• 10,723 nurseries, mainly in Asia (2,973) and America (2,957);
• 12,308 marriage counseling centers, mainly in Europe (5,504) and America (4,289);
• 3,198 social reintegration centers and
• 33,840 other types of institutes.

Tell me, ChrsitB4us, which of these would you like to burn down first???

 

[Leonard03782]

The core of the office is for the maintaining of unity of Faith.

Which faith??

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Matthew16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “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 say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 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. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

What is this Rock? The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel.