Did Jesus Truly Say, “I Will Build My Church Upon Peter?”

The reason For My faith ^ | 6/3/22 | Chuck Ness

[G Larry]

You're not "stepping on toes", you're making yourself look ridiculous.

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same.

Pretending Christ wasn't referring to Peter is nonsense.

Pretending that via some linguistic pretzel logic that Christ goes to all the trouble to state that Peter's declaration is inspired by God the Father, and proceed to give him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. And give him the powers to bind and loose, which are guaranteed by heaven,.....and then deny that Christ was referring to Peter, regarding building His church on him, is just pitiful.

Matt 16:
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.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Christ is not counting on Peter's human failings. Christ is counting on the Blessings Peter clearly received from God.

[metmom]

No, because Jesus is the only rock ever referred to in Scripture.

And Jesus never said*OI will build my church on YOU* to Peter, so the Catholic church is assuming the wrong antecedent.

[Tell It Right]

Acts 10:25-26 -- As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

Unlike Peter, the pope likes being bowed to.

[AlanSC]

Well said

[metmom]

The gates of hell are defensive, not an offensive weapon. They cannot attack anything.

However, when the true church moves in God’s power, even the gates of hell cannot stand up to it.

The Catholic church did not give us Scripture. That came primarily from the Jews and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Compiling it into one handy compendium is not a work of genius. It was the obvious result of people wanting it themselves.

Nor does it give anyone the authority to lay claim for being *responsible* for it nor dictate how it is to be read, how it is to be interpreted, or who can access it.

The Catholic religion is presuming too much authority in spiritual matters that it simply does not have.

[OneVike]

I am feeling better than before, but now I am looking my right shoulder being replaced. So my next 6 Months are going to be a very different experience. I’m right handed and my right arm will be useless. I won’t even be able to start therapy for 3 to 3 1/2 Months

Thank you fir your insight

[Parmy]

Perhaps someone can tell me what Peter’s role was after the Crucifixion in Acts.

[metmom]

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same.

Assuming that is true, that is totally irrelevant as the manuscripts we have are in Greek, not Aramaic. The Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve it in Greek, not Aramaic.

It's ridiculous to force interpretations based on what a non-existent text might have said.

Determining in theology and doctrine and then finding Scripture to try to support it, is a sure fire recipe for deception.

[metmom]

We are commanded in James, the RCC’s favorite book of the Bible to NOT be respecters of persons. It’s a sin.

[Jim W N]

Jesus said, "Upon the rock will I build my church."

Later, man decided to invent a church making Peter a Pope.

Jesus said, I, NOT man, will build MY, not man's church.

[JAKraig]

I agree, in part anyway, with what he is talking about.

Christ was just explaining to Peter that he received the knowledge of the validity of Christ being The Son of God via the Holy Ghost or by revelation. This ability to receive revelation from God is what Christ was talking about. The rock therefore is revelation. Every person can know that God is real and that He sent His Son into the world to save us from our sins. We can only “KNOW” that by revelation. We can have faith that it is true and by following the precepts of the Gospel we can be sure of it’s truthfulness. We can only know by revelation since we can’t transport ourselves into the past and see for ourselves.

As for statements of others leading people to Hell, I have different thoughts. Firstly, anyone who teaches that Jesus is The Christ is not leading someone to Hell. Secondly anyone who teaches that Jesus is not The Christ is indeed trying to lead people to Hell.

Perhaps the Roman Catholics are teaching a different description of Christ than what Chuck Ness, the writer of the article professes but it is the same Christ. Whether Christ has blond hair, black hair or brown hair matters not in the grand scheme of things. When we meet Him perhaps we will say something stupid like “Oh I didn’t know You had white hair”, but who will care, whatever your belief it got you to the throne of God. Presbyterians teach a different Christ than I know but I don’t think they are leading anyone to Hell. I think the Mormons, the Catholics, the various protestants and all who teach Christ are Christian. The differences will be sorted out later.

[metmom]

He was ONE of the apostles and preached the gospel like the rest of them did.

[arthurus]

Jesus and Peter spoke Aramaic which was the language then current. So perhaps Jesus said Cephas and the greek writer translated it to Peter. Comes to the same thing.

[ebb tide]

This post is trash and is typical of the hypocrisy of protestants.

From the posted article, the author claims, "It’s ludicrous to claim that Jesus would build HIS church upon a sinful flawed individual."

Yet, it's the same rebellious protestants who claim it's not ludicrous that Jesus Christ would choose to be incarnated in the womb of "a sinful flawed individual", with their denial of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

[Mark17]

There actually is a rock in a grotto where it is believed Jesus preached.

I believe that would be the grotto of Pan, sometimes called the gates of hell. It might have been right there, smack dab in the middle of Satan’s domain, where Jesus meant it to be a poke in Satan’s eye, with a sharp stick.

[OneVike]

I am Chuck Ness, and until now I have held my tongue on my diss agreement with a Catholics of FreeRepublic. I am one of the last remaining original Freepers, and in 25 years I have ever ventured into speaking my mind about this here. I have always stayed out of the fray when it comes to speaking what I think on the teachings of Catholicism and yea I was raised by a Catholic step father who sent me to cara husk classes every Wednesday as a child

So dislike it all you want, but what I says is a fact.

[metmom]

No, it doesn’t. Because if the Holy spirit wanted to describe peter as the rock on which the church was built, He could have most certainly done it.

The opinion of people about the Aramaic, does not rise to the level of divinely inspired Scripture.

Jesus is THE Rock. There are no others on which His body is built.

[Redmen4ever]

thanks, Vike.

Jesus often used humor, sarcasm and exaggeration. He was an amazing teacher.

Here, Jesus is using a play on words: thou are Peter (Petros) and on this Rock (Petras) I will build my church. The Rock is what Peter said, that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

[OneVike]

Catholic church did not compile the Bible

The Christian Church was a fragment of churches at the time. No one church held sway as of yet

[Alberta's Child]

So why would Jesus build His church upon an unstable human who needs to be saved?

And along those lines … if Jesus wanted to build His church upon a human, then why would he select the man who was the most flawed of them all (Simon Peter) instead of the one apostle (John) whose faith in Jesus was so solid that he was the only one who stayed at the foot of the Cross and wasn’t martyred?

The answer is that Jesus knew better than anyone that His church needed to be led by a man of the world who was tough as nails rather than a quiet, devoted, charitable type.