[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You sure?

“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

“For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. (Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’...But 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. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

Compare Augustine’s argument with these facts about the Greek of Petros and Petra:

Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

Augustine again:

“For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra;”

By the way, isn’t this the second time you’ve launched a thread like this? Don’t you get bored with it?

[metmom]

It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.

Scripture existed outside the Catholic church and was Scripture long before the Catholic church was around to give it its stamp of approval. Scripture does not need the corrupt, immoral leadership of Catholicism to validate it. It stands on its own as the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say,...? is always the work of Satan.

And it's staggering to think that Satan is STILL getting so much mileage out of impugning the word of God.

1.2 billion strong gullible.

[jimmyray]

Subscribed

[NKP_Vet]

“By the way, isn’t this the second time you’ve launched a thread like this? Don’t you get bored with it”.

Don’t you get bored with playing verbal gymnastics to deny the truth?

[daniel1212]

You sure?

"The Peter Syndrome is a deadly disease rampant amongst modern Roman Catholic apologists. And it is a disease that makes you see every reference to Peter anywhere in an early father as somehow relevant to the bishop in Rome even if that father never makes that connection himself, never shows that he believes the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth, never says that Peter's successor sit only on the sit in Rome, it doesn't matter as long as an early father says something nice about Peter, therefore he is in support of the bishop of Rome." - James R. White; http://tinubos.blogspot.com/2011/06/james-r-white-peter-syndrome.html - a review of the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys,