i agree that there are many ways 'rock' is used in the bible but it does not mean matt 16 refers to the same use of the word 'rock' in the other verses. i already stated this in my past post...https://forums.carm.org/threads/pope-backs-civil-unions.293/post-405737
Pope backs civil unions
- Thread starter organgrinder
- Start date
organgrinder
Well-known member
A concordance keyed to Strong's numbers will help you.
here is strong's concordance on 'rock' in matt26 Word: petra
Pronounce: pet'-ra
Strongs Number: G4073
Orig: feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock. G4074
Use: TDNT-6:95,834 Noun Feminine
Heb Strong: H2496 H3710 H5553 H6697
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
organgrinder
Well-known member
Then look up the instances of "rock" in scripture using a concordance. What does it tell you? Should be pretty easy. It isn't Peter. and in the Matthew 16 section we have both the masculine and feminine used. Simon is called "petros" (Strongs 4074), and the second usage (Strongs 4073) is the feminine, not referring to Peter. Who does it then refer? Jesus, the Rock of our salvation.
Last edited:
they are the same. accdg to strong....petra g4073 is the feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock. G4074 in other words, both refers to peter.
organgrinder
Well-known member
Nope. Only in Roman Catholicism. You ignore every other usage of Rock referring to Jesus in the OT and NT. Jesus didn't build His church on a man. He built it upon Himself, being the chief cornerstone. A scripture study supports that and puts Matthew 16 into perspective. And Jesus didn't say, Petros, you are the Petra upon which I will build my church. He referred to Himself.
Theo1689
Well-known member
In what way is gay marriage a "basic human right"?
Theo1689
Well-known member
And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."
-- Chrysostom, Homily LIV,
"And wherefore said He not, But I did not suffer it, rather than, I have prayed? He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He may show His humanity. For He that has built His church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it;"
-- Chrysostom, Homily LXXXIV
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: On him as on a rock the Church was builtBut I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For, Thou art Peter and not Thou art the rock was said to him. But the rock was Christ, in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.
-- Augustine, Retractions
"To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, Thou art the Son of the living God. Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.
-- Hilary
Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peters flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But his confession of faith conquered hell.
-- Ambrose of Milan
"When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple.
-- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 4.2
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer."
-- Augustine, John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
"You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name."
-- Bede, Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156.
"It will not be moved is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord."
-- Cassiodorus, Expositions in the Psalms, Psalm 45.5, M.P.L., Vol. 70, Col. 330)
These early christians believed the rock to be peter's confession of faith but it does not mean they do not believe in petrine primacy. Peter being the rock is not the only evidence for petrine primacy. the keys of heaven given to peter by christ is another, if not better, evidence. here are few examples...
John Chrysostom (345?-407), one of the most influential of the Greek Fathers, wondered why Peter did not simply appoint a successor to Judas. After all, said Chrysostom, Peter had been “put in trust by Christ of the flock. . . . Why did he not ask Christ to give him someone in the room of Judas?” Then Chrysostom answers his own question. Apart from other considerations, this is most important: “Of Christ’s presence among them the greatest proof that could be given was this: As he had chosen, when he was among them, so did he now being absent.” [Quoted by Chapman, 86-87.]
While sharing the view Christ’s words in John 21 are restorative, John Chrysostom (347–407) understands that by them the Lord also confers “chief authority among the brethren” upon Peter:
“He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, “If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep” (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, homily 88). Later in the same homily, John Chrysostom observes that Jesus “appointed” Peter “teacher of the world.”
Ambrose of MIlan
[40. 30] "It is to Peter himself that He says, 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church [Mt 16: 18]." Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal..."Commentaries on Twelve of David's Psalms [381-397 A.D.]
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
Cyril of Alexandria, himself a leading Eastern Father, asked the Pope to settle the (Nestorian)controversy. “Deign, therefore, to decide what seems right, whether we ought to communicate at all with him or to tell him plainly that no one communicates with a person who holds and teaches what he does.” Cyril further requested the Pope to communicate his decision by letter “to all the bishop of the East.” This would both give the Eastern bishops “the opportunity of standing together in unity of soul and mind and lead them to contend earnestly for the orthodox faith which is being attacked”
who is the rock of your salvation? Peter?
pp
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
And it came to pass,
when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed:
and when he let down his hand,
Amalek prevailed.
Theo;
Are these men you quote an "Authority" in you understanding
Word of caution;
the RCC has studied these and others, especially the ECFs for centuries;
you cannot prove Rome wrong by quoting from their own
Is.30:1
Woe to the rebellious children
That walk to go down into Egypt,
and have not asked at my mouth;
to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
..
12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,
Because ye despise (set at naught) this word,
and trust in oppression and perverseness,
and stay thereon:
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
And it came to pass,
when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed:
and when he let down his hand,
Amalek prevailed.
Theo;
Are these men you quote an "Authority" in you understanding
Word of caution;
the RCC has studied these and others, especially the ECFs for centuries;
you cannot prove Rome wrong by quoting from their own
Is.30:1
Woe to the rebellious children
That walk to go down into Egypt,
and have not asked at my mouth;
to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
..
12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,
Because ye despise (set at naught) this word,
and trust in oppression and perverseness,
and stay thereon:
Last edited:
Theo1689
Well-known member
Nope.
Actually, it turns out that I can.
It demolishes the Romanist lie that Jesus making Peter head of the church "is the unanimous 2000-year-old teaching of the church!!!!!"
It only shows that Romanists are ignorant of their own ECF's.
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
And it came to pass,
when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed:
and when he let down his hand,
Amalek prevailed.
Theo;
Are these men you quote an "Authority" in you understanding
Word of caution;
the RCC has studied these and others, especially the ECFs for centuries;
you cannot prove Rome wrong by quoting from their own
Is.30:1
Woe to the rebellious children
That walk to go down into Egypt,
and have not asked at my mouth;
to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
..
12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,
Because ye despise (set at naught) this word,
and trust in oppression and perverseness,
and stay thereon:
=========================================================
The 1st Day Church = Following in the footsteps of Israel
So Aaron said
What ??????
Gimmie all dat dar Egyptian Jewelry
and out PoPs this Golden Calf
lesson to be learned
I have followed many of these threads,
and watched a few debates between the Apologist for both sides
bar none the Protestant will have Rome on the Ropes
as long as he stays with "it is Written"
unfortunately; the Protestant thinks he will put the killing blow by quoting from
"those that speak for the Gods of Egypt"
and the RCC Apologist will cut him to shreds
and hand him his head on a platter
you and I; Theo;
read the ECF's ect, ect, ect thru the eyes of a Protestant
the RCCer reads it thru the voice of " the Egyptian Gods"
/
out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
And it came to pass,
when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed:
and when he let down his hand,
Amalek prevailed.
Theo;
Are these men you quote an "Authority" in you understanding
Word of caution;
the RCC has studied these and others, especially the ECFs for centuries;
you cannot prove Rome wrong by quoting from their own
Is.30:1
Woe to the rebellious children
That walk to go down into Egypt,
and have not asked at my mouth;
to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
..
12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,
Because ye despise (set at naught) this word,
and trust in oppression and perverseness,
and stay thereon:
=========================================================
The 1st Day Church = Following in the footsteps of Israel
And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount,
the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron,
and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us;
for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt,
we wot not what is become of him.
So Aaron said
What ??????
Gimmie all dat dar Egyptian Jewelry
And Aaron said unto them,
Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives,
of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
and out PoPs this Golden Calf
lesson to be learned
When we wear the "Earrings" placed on our Ears
by those that speak for the Gods of Egypt
all we have "Ears too Hear" is the voice of the Egyptian Gods
They are not ignorant;
I have followed many of these threads,
and watched a few debates between the Apologist for both sides
bar none the Protestant will have Rome on the Ropes
as long as he stays with "it is Written"
unfortunately; the Protestant thinks he will put the killing blow by quoting from
"those that speak for the Gods of Egypt"
and the RCC Apologist will cut him to shreds
and hand him his head on a platter
In those days also saw I
Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:
24 And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod,
and could not speak in the Jews' language,
but according to the language of each people.
you and I; Theo;
read the ECF's ect, ect, ect thru the eyes of a Protestant
the RCCer reads it thru the voice of " the Egyptian Gods"
/
Theo1689
Well-known member
I already answered this question.
Why do you feel the need to waste my time repeating yourself?
I already answered this question.
As it turns out, I *CAN* prove Rome wrong by quoting the ECF's.
And I've done so.
It's "etc." (standing for "et cetera").
You can make that claim if it makes you happy.
Kind of makes the ECF's worthless for both sides, since both sides can claim the other is "reading them through ______ eyes".
there are many metaphors for rock in the bible and one of them is that god is our rock (1samuel2: 2)
how does that answer my question?
you can't answer the question?
who is your god? Peter? the rcc?
Genesis 19:36
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37 And the first born bare a son,
and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38 And the younger, she also bare a son,
and called his name Benammi:
the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Nehemiah 13
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people;
and therein was found written,
that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;
..
In those days also saw I
Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:
24 And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod,
and could not speak in the Jews' language,
but according to the language of each people.
is it any wonder the children of Ammon, and of Moab:
cannot understand the book of Moses
god, of course!
then why did you dodge my question? why put Peter in His place?
why put the rcc in His place?
is that god or God?
RayneBeau
Well-known member
When a Roman Catholic who frets over the ways the word "rock" is used in the Bible, just wait until the Roman Catholic comes up against the intellectual challenge of the gospel as the Apostle Paul presented it, the unregenerate Roman Catholic will be left holding a stone, but with no place to stand.