This has been the topic of so many discussions in the long history of the Catholic Church. The authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church from the pope to the clergy claim that they derived their power from the Apostle Peter, allegedly the first pope and the successor of Christ in the overall administration of the Christian Church. They based their claim on what is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.
(Matthew 16:18-19) “I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” DOUAY-RHEIMS VERSION
Their claim and explanation about these verses is printed hereunder from the Modern Catholic Dictionary.
The claim that Peter was the first pope and the rock whereupon the church was built is erroneous and can not be substantiated, either in history or in the Bible. The word pope was first used by an alleged saint, Saint Ennodius, in the year 521, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. (Photocopied below)
And also, in the Modern Catholic Dictionary, it states:
How can Peter be a pope when such title was first used 400 years after the death of Peter?
Biblically, Peter can not be a pope! It is prohibited by Christ to the original twelve disciples to be called ‘rabbi’ or teacher because their only teacher was Jesus Christ.
(Matthew 23:8) “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.”
They were also forbidden to address anybody on earth their father because (religiously speaking) they have only one Father, which is the Father in heaven.
(Matthew 23:9) “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.”
Peter will definitely not allow anybody to call him pope because that word means Father, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia cited afore.
So, we can safely conclude that Peter did not ever hold the position of pope, biblically and historically, according to the Bible, and to official documents from the Catholic Church itself.
But was he the rock upon which the Church was built?
Peter, an Apostle, first to be called, is part of the Church.
(1 Corinthians 12:28) “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”
He is not the rock or the foundation, but were among those who were founded upon the real rock or ‘petra’, or foundation.
πέτρα
petra
pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): – rock.
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words taken from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance by James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., 1890.
Note that the Church was founded on a ‘petra’ — in the feminine gender, and not on a ‘petros’ ( a stone), the name ascribed to Peter.
(John 1:42) “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”
It was not only Peter which was called a stone, but Peter himself called the members of the first century Church as lively stones.
(1 Peter 2:5) “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.”
Members of the first century Church were called by Peter as ‘lively stones’ or ‘lithos’ in the original Greek tongue.
λίθος
lithos
Thayer Definition:
1) a stone
1a) of small stones
1b) of building stones
1c) metaphorically of Christ
They, Peter, other Apostles, and the members, altogether formed the edifice founded on the rock or ‘petra’.
(Matthew 16:18) “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The rock mentioned is ‘petra’ and not ‘petros’.
(Ephesians 2:20) “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…”
Note that the Apostles (including Peter) and prophets are built upon the foundation(they are not the foundation), the chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Is there anybody else qualified to be the foundation of the true Church in the Bible?
(1 Corinthians 3:11) “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Anybody who will build a church, and make Peter or any other man its foundation is rejecting Christ and building it in vain. Peter said:
(Acts 4:10-12) “Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” DOUAY-RHEIMS VERSION
The house or the building founded or built upon the ‘petra’ or the foundation rock (which is Christ), is the Church of God.
(1 Timothy 3:15) “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
God built it upon Christ — the real foundation.
(Hebrews 3:4) “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.”
(Psalams 127:1) “Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”
To Kay, I hope you will considers these things in your search for the truth.
God Bless.
EFS
Related Articles:
The Roman Catholic Church is Not the True Church of God
The Church of God is Needed for Salvation
The Church of the Bible: The Only 100% True Church
Limbo: A Catholic Invented Doctrine
The Covenant on the Fleshy Tables of the Heart
esoriano 
kay,
search the truth and the truth will set you free!
Bulls eye!!!
Huwow……! Fantastic explanation Bro. Eli! 🙂 So you people out there, indulge yourselves to the truth…. Don’t let your minds be deceived with falsehood…. Visit Bro.Eli’s blog and discover… 🙂
the first pope? i searched the auto search bible engine and it said “no words or phrase found” sorry for them. another invented demonic doctrine of the catholic church
Bro. Eli Good day,
I have a question.
When Jesus Said “I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon “THIS” rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
does he Pointing a material Rock or in that moment the one who is talking is the God the Father in hevean through Jesus Christ and refering the “THIS” to his son Jesus Christ?
Thats all……
Thanks be to God
(i will post it also in the Ask Bro. Eli section)
Bro Eli, I stand corrected when I said that Peter is a pebble. I now learned that he is a stone in masculine gender and a part of the early members of the Church of God which are all called lively stones.
May I ask, is it correct to say that Jesus has prophesied already, (God the Father speaking through Jesus Christ) that St Peter shall be maliciously used and be referred to as a rock when actually he was referred to by Jesus as a stone in this verse, and also when he gave him the nickname?
In this verse, through Jesus Christ, the God the Father until now is reminding satan that the gates of hell shall not win over the Church of God.
Matthew 16:17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
But catholics further proved that St Peter is the Rock because of this verse:
19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
But I think that Jesus Christ was the one being mentioned to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever he loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Afterwhich Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Lastly, the verse below imparts to Christian not to doubt the foundation of the Church, which is Jesus Christ this is because the Jews can’t accept that Jesus Christ is a God, and the son of God.
…21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Thank you God for all the blessings, including Bro Eli, and for those that we do not see.
May the Lord richly bless you.
Till He comes the year of the LORD 2011…?
I hope this will make things clear….
Amen….
I thank God for giving us Bro. Eli… To God be the Glory!!
Thanks be to God Brother Eli for another God-given post. THANKS BE TO GOD!
Bro Eli Soriano . . . that’s a name to remember!
Straight to the point exegesis like no other!
A commanding use of biblical text and references
to magnify the truth, comprehensible to any
common person!
And most important of all, with all humbleness and modesty intact to glorify the God whom he serves with all his mind and strength.
Not by denying the wisdom in him. . . . . .
But by acknowledging that only thru God’s benevolent guidance can he accoplish such a unfathomable comprehesion of His words!
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!!!!!
Knowing that the Catholic Church has a baseless claim of St. Peter as their first “pope” and is responsible for the deaths in the Inquisition, also claiming that outside of their church – there is no salvation…. Now, would anyone in their right mind still think this is the TRUE church?! Need more convincing? Because it’s a long list of erroneous doctrines and notorious popes!
there is a lot of people reading this blog. or better yet, a lot of brethren posting there comments. How come there is only 14 Diggs??? I don’t think this reflects the truth. so I encourage you brethren… please DIGG!!!!
Amen! To God be the glory, forever and ever!!!
May all Catholics who read this be enlightened and search for the truth which is not in the Roman Catholic Church. Being a former member of the Catholic community, I urge all to be seekers of the truth. Read.
In John 5:39 it says:
“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
The Bible should be the basis of all our beliefs. Not tradition, not doctrines promulgated by man but by the Word of God which can be found in the Bible.
Thanks be to God!!!
Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com
to catholic and kay
Bro Eli is not an enemy to you, well in fact, a friend..
hope you realize these things before it’s too late, do not defend the faith that is not even bothering in defending you..
can’t you see.. catholic Priests are not even doing anything to defend your faith, you are the one’s doing it. They are not concerned about your salvation, i am a catholic once, and never in my catholic life have ever felt the same feeling i am experiencing from the start i heard bro Eli, the feeling of being safe and secured because knowing that my faith (now) is not based on any dogmas and hearsays but PURELY WRITEN!..
and for that i don’t think i need to “tumanaw ng utang na loob sa catholic” but rather.. I REALLY NEED is …
“Tumanaw ng utang na loob sa Dios!”
I hope and pray that our brothers and sister which are being jailed in the catholic church for so many years shall destroy the padlock in their hearts and may see the light at the other end of the tunnel.
the rock? NO.
little rock? YES!
“Praise God” and Thank Him for the wisdom that flowing from Bro. eli, I hope many catholics will open their mind and search the truth,may the God of Jacob,and of abraham bless you always brother…..more power…untv37.
Haha. I like the comment by one of the readers, “Bulls Eye!”.
That’s two words to describe the article, and I believe it’s indeed “Bulls Eye!”.
catholic members try to ask ur leaders about this and compare their answer to b.eli’s explanation. i guarantee u, der is no convincing words dat will come out of their mouths…….don’t believe me? try for ur self…..
Strange comments from COMMENT #7 what will happen in that year? 2011?
please show your proof
such a great expaination…
you better check this blog or else
you’ll missed half of your life…
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!!!
to number 7) Family Radio Africa,
Good day! How come you arrived to the idea of 2011 that Jesus will come? No man knows it.
Please continue reading bro. Eli’s blog. Try to listen to him and you will be enlightened. Always search for the truth. Thank you!
TO ELMANTHEMAN,
U SAID IN POST#6: NOW I LEARNED THAT HE IS A STONE IN A MASCULINE GENDER
WHO TAUGHT YOU TO LEARN THAT PETER IS A STONE “IN A MASCULINE GENDER”?
IF YOUR ANSWER IS BRO.ELI, THEN TELL ME WHICH PART IN HIS POST DID YOU GET THAT.
IF NOT HIM, WHAT’S UR REFEERNCE TO PROVE THAT PETROS IS IN MASCULINE GENDER
7 Family Radio Southern Africa AM 1197 (6pm-1am)
May the Lord richly bless you.
Till He comes the year of the LORD 2011…?
this is not true, yet baseless
Thanks Be To God!!! because of you Bro. Eli we are enlighten,,!!! through the Gospel off Jesus Christ that you preach is very clear, and with the help of God we understand the truth from the bible….
thanks to God to wonderful expalnation of bro.eli, i thought that the catholic member see the real truth the clear expalnation of bro.eli in the bible
My reply to comment no. 7,
I am not surprise hearing you declaring things like this, Bro. Eli had reminded us that people in the last day will act as of they are the saviour Jesus Christ,in our country we have a person named QUIBULOY who declared himself son of God,well as for your declaration it’s not uncommon,I will not be surprise if someday you will be declaring yourself the Son of God also. But my hope still remains with God that you willl be enlighten by bro. Eli’s teachings from the bible.Just keep in touch always with this Blog and soon you will understand.
My Catholic brothers:
It’s your time to refute Bro. Eli’s post here.
again my advice, in order to be saved, either join the True Church of God or stay as a Biblical Freelancer if you feel that the Church’s doctrines difficult for you to follow.
stay away from the pagan faith is enough what I did. just believe in the verses of the Bible not on the person who is teaching of the Bible.
because Biblical verses ae from God and it’s 100% correct while Bro Eli is a man that can make mistake.
Again, just follow what Bro Eli teaches in the Bible but not his anomalies if you believe that he is doing some. just renounce the Catholic pagan faith.
My Catholic brothers:
I’m also once an ADD critic but soon enlightened by the God sent Biblical preacher Bro. Eli.
you know, Bro. Mike is true that our priests dont want to defend our faith.
Do you know what the Bible describe about it?
read this:
I AM THE GOOD SHEPHERD: THE GOOD SHEPHERD GIVETH HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP.
But he that is a HIRELING, and not the shepherd,WHOSE OWN SHEEP ARE NOT, seeth the wolf coming, and LEAVETH THE SHEEP, AND FLEETH: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
THE HIRELING FLEETH, BECAUSE HE IS A HIRELING, AND CARETH NOT FOR THE SHEEP.
John 10:11-13
pls. take note what I made in caps.
The good shephed giveth his life but the one who leave the sheep is not a good shepherd.
that is our priests. I once seeked their knowledge to defeat the ADD workers and members but they ignore it so I’m the only one left to defend and still defeated (eventhough I’m a Catholic religion knowledgeable, religion best test taker in my whole life)
It is not enough to surpass the wisdom the ADD’s have.
so this is the proof that our Church is not of God. renounce it’s belief my brothers and God will have a mercy on you if you’ll live as a Freelancer still believes in God and the Bible.
I always say unto you that if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, you’ll surely renounce our faith.
but if you insist to be devoted to that faith, you’re not a Christian but a blinded fanatic.
fanatic are destined to hell. so before the Son arrives here to judge all of you, make sure that you’re doing good in accordance of the Bible and already renounced the pagan Catholic faith and I’ll say that you’re 100% saved.
Your Catholic brother (even an ADD sympathizer),
ally of ADD
“7 Family Radio Southern Africa AM 1197 (6pm-1am)
May the Lord richly bless you.
Till He comes the year of the LORD 2011…?”
– This is the same program being broadcasted in the Bay area, from Oakland California on 610AM wherein a certain Harold Camping answers phone-in questions regarding bible verses. He claims that the church age has come to an end, – another false prophet!!!!
We hope that instead of these false prophets, Bro Eli could have a live radio program not only in the Philippines but also abroad, especially in the US and Canada.
Everyone,
If you are going to click on post #7’s name, you will end up in on this site:
http://www.timehasanend.org/
You’ll find teachings there which are in contrary to the bible. Let me cite some for example.
http://www.timehasanend.org/public/en_time_has_an_end_ch13.html#09
1. . . . only God can save us and He must do all of the work
required to save us.
See? ALL? I think this is contrary to what the Apostle wrote to the Philippians.
Philippians 2:12 ¶Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
“Work our your own salvation”, according to Paul.
2. . . . when God commands unsaved mankind to believe and to
repent, there is no way possible for the unsaved
(that is, the spiritually dead) to obey these commands.
See? How impertinent! Their god must be a non-sense one. But the God in the bible is not. Will God command something, which He knows man cannot do?
This is just another false prophet like the one in Davao and Miranda.
Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Answer to Wolverine about his comment #25 as he commented on my comment #6,
Are you rebutting just for the sake of it, or for the sake of the truth?
Bro Eli will correct me, if I am wrong, not you.
“7 Family Radio Southern Africa AM 1197 (6pm-1am)
May the Lord richly bless you.
Till He comes the year of the LORD 2011…?”
to#7,
Who ever runs this station is an advocate of satan to spread false teaching to mankind, since it is very clear that no knows what day or hour the Son of God comes. Beware, this is creeping into this blog to catch some who may be decieved in this last times of the end. ssD
TO ELMANTHEMAN,
AM NOT REBUTTING FOR THE SAKE OF IT, WHAT I DID WAS DIFFERENT, ITS MORE LIKE OF ASKING.
U SED THAT U STAND CORRECTED BY MR. SORIANO AND NOW U LEARNED THAT PETER WAS A STONE AND IT IS IN MASCULINE GENDER. SO YOUR IMPLYING THAT U LEARNED ALL OF THESE THROUGH MR.SORIANO’S CORRECTION FROM HIS POST. SO AM JUST ASKING YOU WHICH PART OF HIS POST DID YOU GET “PETROS IS IN MASCULINE GENDER”?
AND AM NOT CORRECTING YOU, AM JUST ASKING A PROOF FROM YOUR CLAIM THAT U LEARNED IT FORM MR. SORIANO THAT “PETROS” WAS IN MASCULINE GENDER, SO WHAT’S THE ANSWER?
BUT I KNOW THAT MR.SORIANO HAD NOT MENTIONED SUCH CLAIM THAT PETROS WAS IN MASCULINE GENDER IN HIS POST, HOWEVER, U CAN STILL GIVE A PROOF FROM ANOTHER SOURCE IF YOU CAN.
30 Ally of Add,
1. You said, “again my advice, in order to be saved, either join the True Church of God or stay as a Biblical Freelancer if you feel that the Church’s doctrines difficult for you to follow.”
***If you can remember, America labeled a country who is not with them in fighting terrorism to be against them after 9/11..
Anyways, do you have a biblical proof for being a biblical freelancer if one feels that the Church’s doctrines are difficult for one to follow, can still be saved?
Your statement seems to me that, one has ALREADY KNOWN of the doctrines, but one just finds it difficult to follow.
a. You know, I believe, you really cannot do it on your own.
Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
b. You need the Lord’s direction.
Proverbs 16:9 ¶A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
c. Remember, the God in the bible is not nonsense.
1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
…WHO WILL NOT SUFFER YOU TO BE TEMPTED ABOVE THAT YE ARE ABLE.
But if you will still allow yourself to be tempted, surely, it is not His fault but yours.
2. You said, “stay away from the pagan faith is enough what I did. just believe in the verses of the Bible not on the person who is teaching of the Bible.”
***This seems to be sending mixed signals, just like US lawmakers showing their support to soldiers on TV but not giving them the fund to continue the war.
a. If you think pagan faith is evil, staying away from it is actually NOT ENOUGH according to the bible. You also have to CLEAVE TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD, according to the bible, if really you have already known of the doctrine.
Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
b. How can we believe the verses in the bible while not believing the peson whom you believe is teaching us the verses in the bible? This seems to be double-faced.
According to the Lord Jesus Christ:
Mark 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
c. Emphatically, if you reject one of such, you also reject Him, and the One who sent Him.
Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
d. And when that happens:
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
3. You said, “because Biblical verses ae from God and it’s 100% correct while Bro Eli is a man that can make mistake.
Again, just follow what Bro Eli teaches in the Bible but not his anomalies if you believe that he is doing some. just renounce the Catholic pagan faith.”
a. Biblical VERSES are from God? hmmm! I believe, not all. Here’s one LINE from satan.
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
b. About Bro. Eli being a man that make mistake, click on this link below and read my post #63.
c. Again, renouncing the catholic pagan faith is NOT ENOUGH. You also have to CLEAVE TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD.
CLEAVE
G2853
κολλάω
kollaō
kol-lah’-o
From κόλλα kolla (“glue”); to glue, that is, (passively or reflexively) to stick (figuratively): – cleave, join (self), keep company.
31 Ally of Add,
…almost the same thought as #30. But just in addition:
a. The Bible CONTAINS the words of God.
b. Doing good in accordance to the bible includes CLEAVING TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD, not just abhoring that which is evil.
c. Surely, God’s mercy is everlasting.
Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
May you submit yourself for indoctrination, and CLEAVE TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD before the time comes when you’ll say, “I have no pleasure in them.”.
Ecclesiastes 12:1 ¶Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
to WOLVERINE!
“Note that the Church was founded on a ‘petra’ — in the feminine gender, and not on a ‘petros’ ( a stone), the name ascribed to Peter.”
WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF “feminine gender”?
The Roman Catholic pope is the beast. (666).
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Do you notice in verse seven, “a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads”, guess this is the sign of the cross by the Catholics when they pray or when leaving from their house. I know that Catholics never signed of the cross using their left hand.
Visit this site:
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/666.htm
to RAZ.,
I SED WHAT THE REFERENCE DID YOU GET THAT PETROS IS IN MASCULINE GENDER?
to kay and other catholics,
this only shows how great and wonderful that we have a person to ask such as bro. eli in this perilous time….. to ask questions about tthe existense of the church…….who is the founder… and many more!!!
to comment # 7
no living person can know when will our lord Jesus Christ will be coming back from the heavens….. pls. read the bible….. only our lord jesus christ and the father knows when.
to god be the glory! forever and ever amen!
To Wolverine,
I think I imparted on what I believe in and what I understood.
Let us then know your stand and whom you learned it from!
Peter the Rock
One of the points I try to emphasize when giving a seminar is that you can begin to be an effective apologist right away; you don’t have to wait until you become a theological whiz. Just work with what you know, even if it’s only one fact.
I illustrate this from my own experience, and you can use this technique the next time you have verses thrown at you by an anti-Catholic.
Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. I had been burned too often. Why open the door, or why prolong the conversation (if they caught me outside the house), when I had nothing to say?
Sure, I had a Bible. I used it perhaps the way you use yours today: to catch dust that otherwise would gather on the top shelf of the bookcase. It was one of those “family” Bibles, crammed with beautiful color plates and so heavy that my son didn’t outweigh it until he turned five.
As I said, I had a Bible, but I didn’t turn to it much; so I had little to say about the Bible when missionaries cornered me. I didn’t know to which verses I should refer when explaining the Catholic position.
For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.
Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.
When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-Day Adventist. He asked if he could “share” with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.
He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position.
Not much to say
Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.
Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”
“Hold it right there!” I said. “I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope.” I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.
I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.
“I understand your thinking,” he said, “but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek.”
“Is that so?” I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.
“Yes,” he said. “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble.”
In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).
“You Catholics,” the missionary continued, “because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it.”
“Case closed,” he thought.
It was the missionary’s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.
“Well,” I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, “I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek.” He smiled some more and nodded. “But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic.”
“The what?” he asked.
“The Aramaic,” I said. “As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”
“I thought Greek was.”
“No,” I answered. “Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.
“I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.”
I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.
Aramaic in the New Testament
“We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
“What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
“And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”
For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.
“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”
“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
“I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
Girly,
This is a very vivid explanation of the authority of St. Peter. But I think Mr. Eli Soriano is silent about this because his argument about the papacy or the office of the pope is minuscule. This was written in 2007 as a reply to the hypocrisy of some Filipino “sensible” preachers but I think your reply is not and “will never be” too late. Up to now 2012 Mr. Eli Soriano is silent and not a single voice coming from them is heard to refute your rebuttal of his blog opinion.
i agree with not only giving comments here…lets also make many DIGGS…….
let us help bro. Eli in propagating the gospel….
i say… before you believe him. make your own research….it’s just easy to claim something you’ve heard or seen as truth but, what is the real truth. even if you say the source of it is the bible then how sure are we that we are taking or understanding the bible at the perspective in the way it was written then?
‘The Church is the foundation and pillar of truth…”
has there in the bible written sola scriptura or sola fideli?
We are more than honored to hav u as our preacher. We thank God because he sent u to us. Praise be to God!.
Girly, haven’t you noticed who was speaking when this statement was made, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I am going to build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…”
Who owns the church by the way? Who owns the Church of God?
Girly, like many other Catholics, wants to regain the honor of her Mother Church, which they do not really have. She went her way to make a carousel out of history that they themselves has tried to destroy, even to the extent of killing millions of people.
Let me just highlight to you that this world will pass but God’s Word will remain. I will remain studying the Holy Scripture and depend on it rather than the history you or anyone can adulterate.
The Holy Scripture is still existing up to now proving of its worthiness to contain the word of God and the prophecy that we need to fulfill being Christians; the needed history to be enlightened. Haven’t you noticed, even your MOther Catholic church was prophesied in revelation as the Mother of all Harlots? Give me something even from history which monstrous Mother has occupied earth literally and figuratively!
Imagine, their Pope in hypocrisy has recently tried to beg for forgiveness for such heinous crime they made since time immemorial because he did bothered to clarify that his Mother Catholic church has delivered daughters/prostitutes that has created heinous people and criminals followers.
Correction to the last paragraph of my comment #48
…Imagine, their Pope is very hypocrite and has shown this as he tried to beg for forgiveness for such heinous crime they made since time immemorial because he DID NOT even bother to clarify that his Mother Catholic church has delivered daughters/prostitutes that has created heinous people and criminals followers UP TO NOW…
It was God the Father who was speaking during that time regarding His Son. God was referring to Jesus Christ as the rock!
Haven’t the gates of hell prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church? Filipinos has taste a glimpse of it in the hands of the Spaniards. Do not be idiotic about this, because if you do so, I cannot help but agree with Spaniards calling us idio!
Look how hypocrite these people can be!
Imagine, their Pope is very hypocrite and has shown this when he tried to beg for forgiveness for such heinous crime they made since time immemorial because he DID NOT even bother to clarify that his Mother Catholic church has been impregnated by the teaching of the devil later on delivered daughters/prostitutes that it turn have created heinous people and criminal followers UP TO this time this post is being typed.
I am very saddened as girly can’t see herself battered by her beliefs but is still willing to remain in the house of butchers, in the house of her mother, The Roman Catholic Church!
45 girly,
1. You said, “‘The Church is the foundation and pillar of truth…””
I say, WHICH CHURCH? According to Paul’s letter to Timothy:
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
The Roman Apostolic Catholic Church?
NO!
2. In the TERMINOLOGY Section of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
…you used many names to describe yourself. See the differences in 1624, 1581, 1588, 1630, 1632, 1659, 1661, 1575, 1675, etc…
But in the bible:
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
3. According to ORIGIN section of that page, you trace your history to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, and sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the Apostles in general, and the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter, leader of the Apostles, in particular.
Ya, right?!?
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
43 girly,
1. You said about Matthew 16:18, “That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope.”
a. You have to consider, that when Jesus speaks, He does not speak of Himself, but the FATHER.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
b. You know, the church said in Matthew 16:18 will be build upon a rock – this rock, the verse says.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
c. And which is that rock that the church will be build upon? Peter? No!
Ephesians 2:20 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:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CORNER STONE!
2. In conclusion you said, “Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”
Your church history will prove you wrong.
a. If Peter’s authority has really been passed down, there shouldn’t have been ANTIPOPES in your papacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipopes
a.1. Christopher 903–904 BETWEEN Pope Leo V and Pope Sergius III
a.2. Boniface VII 974 BETWEEN Pope Benedict VI and Pope Benedict VII and 984–985 between Pope John XIV and Pope John XV
Imagine that? In times BETWEEN your popes, there were ANTIPOPES!
b. If you consider Peter as your first pope, your priests should have been allowed to also have a wife.
Matthew 8:14 ¶And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
c. In the time of Paul, a bishop or a deacon was allowed to be a husband of one wife.
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
d. Your church is just the fulfillment of one of the apostle Paul’s prophecies that in the latter times, some shall give heed to doctrines of devils.
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
May you really find the truth.
43 girly,
Just a correction:
JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CHIEF CORNER STONE!
46 girly,
You asked, “has there in the bible written sola scriptura or sola fideli?”
Maybe not word for word, but we can read these words from the bible:
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
When I showed this verse to one of your kind in bangkal, makati, do you know what he replied? He said, “Hey, it’s just in the old testament.” 🙂 How funny!
I was still a catholic then, though I had been watching Bro. Eli’s programs on tv. So, somehow, I knew where to find the verses to counter his points. But I was just having my car fixed by that apologist that time, so I just laughed and decided not to continue.
And it is only now that I realized I was wrong to had our conversation about that topic.
Anyways, let me just pay for that lost time here.
According to the apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 4:6 Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will stop boasting about one person at the expense of another.*
…not to go beyond what is written. Why?
1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
And you know, according to the apostle John:
Revelation 1:3 ¶Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
If you were him, I would have asked, “How about these? Aren’t these in the new testament?” 🙂
46 girly,
Just a correction:
And it is only now that I realized I was wrong to had ENDED our conversation about that topic.
To Girlie,
Mat. 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ”
If Peter was truly the rock, Christ would have said to Peter, “upon you I will build my church” .. But that is not what is written.
Christ is the Rock and the foundation of the church, even of the apostles, it can never be Peter.
1 Cor. 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ”
Even Peter, who is an apostle is founded in Christ:
Eph 2:20 “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
The Catholic authorities truly misinterpreted what Christ said. Peter is not the Rock, nor the foundation of the True Church. It is our Lord Jesus Christ.
If you insist that Peter is the foundation of your church, then so be it according to what you claim to say.
No wonder, your church is unstable and shaky.
The truth is that : whatever is declaired by Bro. ELI is complete. Why trouble to listen to any other ideas? Anyway I was only 50 years catholic and nothing true happened to me except I was about to end up to hell, but thanks be to Bro. ELI because I am now living and kicking in the house of GOD.
I’m in my perfect sane mind so that I proclaim that I have found the PEARL of great Price. All I pray is that : May all catholics will find the same.
To All Catholics,
Just read or listen to Bro. Eli. Whatever Bro. ELI speaks is all true because they are not, his but from GOD. And treasure his teachings because you will never find such truth from anybody only and Bro. Eli is only One in our age. So grasp the opportunity of having him with us.
Believe me; all of you are in the brink of perdition, please flee from that deception, satan is your silent head. You will know it if you examine the Bible whole-heartedly with Bro. Eli.
to girly,
Eusebius? he wrote matthew in aramaic? is his works considered inspired by the spirit? so many controversies nd forgeries sorrounded this guy.WHY WOULD I BELIEVE SOMEONE WHO HAS A QUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY WHEN THEIR ST. MATTHEW THAT WE CAN RELY ON, MATTHEW’S THE ONE WHO HAD BEEEN WITH CHRIST AND NOT EUSEBIUS.WHY SETTLE FOR ARAMAIC WHERE THERE’S NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PETER THE CEPHAS AND CHRIST THE CEPHAS AND CRISTIAN ARE CEPHAS TOOO IF WE ARE GONNA USE THE ARAMAIC VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
THE FACT REMAINED THAT THERES NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT THERE’S AN ARAMAIC TRANSLATION OF THE GOSPEL MADE BY A CERTAIN EUSEBIUS.Who’s that authority that can say that Eusebius made a translation of aramaic of the gospel? and U said that the meaning that sets the distinction between petros and petra in the time of matthew was lost. Whaatt!!! Hu said so? the ever changing scholars, the truth is not all scholars believe so my dear.
And u said that Peter was made the HEAD OF THE CHURCH here on earth.Whhaattt!! theres no particular verse in the bible that made Peter as the HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
Why would Jesus make PETER THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH here on earth when there’s HIM WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, EARTH AND HEAVEN.There’s no need for a visible head of the church here on earth my dear, for chisrtians does not look to things which are seen but to things which are unseen.
My Brother Eli,
That was a great effort at explaining “The Rock”. Posting Matthew 16:17 would have been great for the people to see the true answer. Peter said, “Thou art the Christ” and Jesus said, “Peter, flesh and blood hath not “REVEALED” this unto you but my Father in heaven. And then comes Matthew 16:18. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He didn’t build the church on Peter. You are correct there, and he didn’t build the Church upon Jesus Christ. He proclaimed that the Church is built upon the “REVELATION” of Jesus Christ. The “REVEALED WORD” is the Rock that the Father has built the entire Church upon. My Father which is in Heaven “REVEALED” this to us. The “REVELATION” of who Jesus is was the building of the Church.
Girly,
Thank you so much for your insightful explanation about Peter as the Rock, Matthew 16: 18-19. It seems to me that you know better how to read the Bible (or you have more clear “bulls eye”) rather than Br. Eli and his followers. (I am sorry to say it but for me, you have proved it)
From your explanation, i can say that in order to know the “true meaning” of the Bible, we have to study it from many different aspects of the Bible, for instances: the historical background (what was the context situation at that time) who is the author, (what is his background, what language he spoke, what kind of language the author is using: literal or figurative ), the audience, (to whom it was written) what were their situation and context) the time,..etc. One can not just take one verse of the Bible to proof his saying and say it from God. Remember that Satan also read the Bible and quote it against Jesus (Mat. 4:6) (imagine that)
Sometimes, when i heard people say “you got to have Bible based church, or it is in the Bible, or the Bible say it….” i wonder, what do they “really” mean? It means to take one verse of Bible of context? For example in response to your question “where is in the Bible about Sola Scriptura,” the man (or woman) initial Jet quoted several verses for instance he take this verse,
“1 Corinthians 4:6 Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will stop boasting about one person at the expense of another.*
…not to go beyond what is written. Why?
Certainly he has a point ” not to go beyond what is written.” But then i wonder what does it mean “what is written” what kind of scripture or wittings that St. Paul refers to the Corinthians? Remember, at that time, there was not book of Bible like we have right now…
So Jet use “not to go beyond what is written.” to proof “sola scriptura” sounds to me that he “go” beyond it is written…any that was only one example.
So what do (I, we, you, they), “really” mean when saying, “the Bible say it…
Girly, thank you for remind me to read the Bible with “more” bulls eye….
Girly,
Thank you so much for your insightful explanation about Peter as the Rock, Matthew 16: 18-19. It seems to me that you know better how to read the Bible (or you have more clear “bulls eye”) rather than Br. Eli and his followers. (I am sorry to say it but for me, you have proved it)
From your explanation, i can say that in order to know the “true meaning” of the Bible, we have to study it from many different aspects of the Bible, for instances: the historical background (what was the context situation at that time) who is the author, (what is his background, what language he spoke, what kind of language the author is using: literal or figurative ), the audience, (to whom it was written) what were their situation and context) the time,..etc. One can not just take one verse of the Bible to proof his saying and say it from God. Remember that Satan also read the Bible and quote it against Jesus (Mat. 4:6) (imagine that)
Sometimes, when i heard people say “you got to have Bible based church, or it is in the Bible, or the Bible say it….” i wonder, what do they “really” mean? It means to take one verse of Bible of context? For example in response to your question “where is in the Bible about Sola Scriptura,” the man (or woman) initial Jet quoted several verses for instance he take this verse,
“1 Corinthians 4:6 Brothers, I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will stop boasting about one person at the expense of another.*
…not to go beyond what is written. Why?
Certainly he has a point ” not to go beyond what is written.” But then i wonder what does it mean “what is written” what kind of scripture or wittings that St. Paul refers to the Corinthians? Remember, at that time, there was not book of Bible like we have right now…
So Jet use “not to go beyond what is written.” to proof “sola scriptura” sounds to me that he “go” beyond it is written…any that was only one example.
So what do (I, we, you, they), “really” mean when saying, “the Bible say it…
It means “literally” meaning? Is it “figurative” meaning? And it can lead to many different interpretation in which can be against each other…(and each of us can claim we are the true one). Who will have the last word?
Girly, thank you for remind me to read the Bible with “more” bulls eye….
Girly, you were right about Peter as “the leader” among the disciples…i can find in the Acts of the Apostles…Peter play important role as the one who gave speech, make the final decision…Peter and other disciples still remember what Jesus said,
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Palangka, would you agree that Matthew 16 contains a prophesy? And you belong to those prophesied on the Chapter that you are clearly trying to monopolize. Sadly, you have the spirit that is a stumbling block.
Based on the Chapter Mathew 16, Jesus has prophesied, (God the Father speaking through Jesus Christ) that St Peter shall be maliciously used and be referred to as a rock. But actually, St Peter was referred to by Jesus as a stone in this verse, having previously given him the name, Peter.
In this verse, through Jesus Christ, the God the Father until now is reminding Satan that the gates of hell shall not win over the Church of God.
Let us see first how Peter acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
This verses show that it is the Father who reveals to us the divine understanding of who Jesus Christ is. Obviously, it is not the Roman Catholic Church who shall say if Jesus is the Rock or not, but the Father in Heaven.
To continue, Jesus Christ began to prophesy:
Mathew 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
But catholics further proved that St Peter is the Rock because of the giving of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
But the verse implies that Jesus Christ was the one being mentioned to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever he loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Afterwhich Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Matthew 16: 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
The “he” referring to was Jesus Christ!
The verses that followed, found below impart to Christians, including Peter, not to doubt the foundation of the Church, which is Jesus Christ, this is because some Jews can’t accept that Jesus Christ is a God, and the son of God. Since in the future, it is not only Jews that shall read this scripture but also us, including those who has the spirit of the unbelieving Jews.
Thus, Satan tried to disprove or dispute, rebuke Jesus Christ with the overwhelming prophecy.
Matthew 16:21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
So, in this verse, is Peter really the one trying to rebuke Jesus Christ. No, it is not Peter, it is Satan. It’s like the serpent telling Eve that she will not die when she eats the fruit of good and evil.
Genesis 3;4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
To continue, Jesus Christ replied:
Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Thus, blatantly, we should not be shocked why the Roman Catholic Church is bragging their authority. This is because they have the mind of the things of men not of the things of God!
Since Peter for them became the “Rock”, using every stories made by men including the Aramaic language, he became the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.
Even a brother in the Church of God knows this,
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that
readeth, and they that
hear the words of this PROPHECY,
and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
There you go, the Peter that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to monopolize is really Satan trying to tempt Jesus Christ! Of course, it is not the person of Peter, but the evil spirit that has spoken out of the mouth of Peter.
Satan really is a deceiver. He tries to immitate God. God the Father spoke through Jesus Christ. Satan spoke through Peter.
From the verse, Jesus Christ will be the one helping Christians that will remain in the Church of God ’til the end.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
To prove that the true church is the Church of God with a promise of salvation, Jesus Christ being the foundation and having the keys of the gates of heaven.
1 Corinthians 1
1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge—
6because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.
7Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
“Thank you God for all the blessings, which includes Bro Eli, and for those that we do not see!”
In short:
Undoubtedly, the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is the rock imitated by Satan. Satan is the Rock of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church. They just used the name of Peter.
Jet, allow me to use your previous statement
“3. According to ORIGIN section of that page, you trace your history to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, and sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the Apostles in general, and the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter, leader of the Apostles, in particular…
…Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”
Correction:
Undoubtedly, Jesus Christ is the is the Rock imitated by Satan. Satan is the Rock of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church. They just used the name of Peter.
Jet, allow me to use your previous statement
“3. According to ORIGIN section of that page, you trace your history to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, and sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the Apostles in general, and the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter, leader of the Apostles, in particular…
…Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”
GREAT ALMIGHTY GOD, WE LOVE YOU, WE PRAISE YOU AND GLORIFY YOU FOREVER AND EVER. We endlessly thank you LORD for giving us Bro Eli and Bro Daniel as leaders of the true church, the CHURCH OF GOD Internatonal. Please bless them more with all the physical and spiritual strenght, to bear the heavy burden of spreading the TRUTH, against all the risks, the dirty persecutions by the enemies of the church, the ever-present threats to their lives, health, and their individual comforts. There is no doubt that like the other perverted churches, the rcc is not the true church. Peter is not the ‘ROCK’ mentioned by JESUS CHRIST. How can an ‘earthly’ rock who denied the LORD three times be the foundation of the true church. While I have great respect and admiration for the apostle Peter, he can not humanly withstand the ‘gates of hell’, unlike CHRIST who has rebuked and repulsed satan many times. Brother Elmantheman is right to quote TITUS 1:16- THEY PROFESS THAT THEY KNOW GOD; BUT IN WORKS THEY DENY HIM…From the days of our forefathers up to the present times, we have seen the cruelty of the rcc INQUISITIONS, their TWISTING OF THE WORDS OF GOD, INTRODUCTION OF DIFFERENT and ANTI-CHRIST DOGMAS, and PAGANISM, and, COMMERCIALIZATION of their church. We can enumerate a litany of the rcc’s blatant lies about LIMBO, PURGATORY, the ROSARY, SIGN OF THE CROSS, and, and many more, but time and space will not be enough. Suffice us to say that as showned by Bro Eli, one can not refute the TRUTH that the church mentioned to be built is the CHURCH OF GOD, and the ROCK is no other than CHRIST HIMSELF. Thank you for this blog Bro Eli and your sacrifices to preach the WORDS OF GOD.
Dear, elmantheman
Your explanation of the Mat 16: 18-19 is overlapping and there is not logical thinking on it. Let me take one example if it.
You said that Matthew 16:19 implies that Jesus Christ was the one being mentioned to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever he loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
The questions for you to clarify :
1. In what sense that you state that verse 16: 18 implies to Jesus? From the text, I believe you tend read (change) the word “you” in Matt 16: 19 as to Jesus? Why do you refers “you” to Jesus? Not to Simon?
If you said that this verse implies to Jesus then you mean the word “you” implies to Jesus and not to Peter. Then this verse according to “you” (NOT to Gospel of Matthew) will sound like “ I (Jesus) will give you (Jesus) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you ( “Jesus”) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you ( “Jesus”) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven…
I don’t think the author of the Gospel of Matthew would agree with you. If you say that that verse implies that Jesus is the one being mentioned to have the keys, then why didn’t he wrote the Gospel like u mean? In fact, the text the author did not write what u were saying. Maybe the author of the Gospel will say that you are the one who monopolize his Gospel and you are the hone who has the spirit of stumbling block and do not understand what is already clear in the Gospel.
2. Using your logical thinking on Matt 16: 19, the other question for you is, why you didn’t tend to say that the word “you” in Matt 16:18 also implies to Jesus?
3. What authority you have to overrule the author of the Gospel of Matthew?
4. What make your opinion is true?
5. Do I make sense?
It is clear that in Mat 16: 18 Jesus is speaking to Simon.
If you think the Rock is not refers to Peter, then why Jesus has to call and (change) Simon’s name with Peter? What is Jesus’ purpose to call Simon by the name of Peter? Of course Jesus has special intention to call Simon by the name of Peter in that context because Jesus knows that by Simon’s acknowledge that Jesus is Messiah, Simon is chosen by the Father (not the RCC) to be the Rock for Jesus’ church.
So the Father revealed to Simon that he is the Rock, and Jesus calls him to be the rock, the foundation of the church. So it is the Father also who chose Simon to be the rock of the church, (and not the RCC), but the Father and Jesus affirm what the Father did, to choose Simon to be Peter, to be church founded by Jesus and NOT the church founded by Bro. Eli Soriano which first registered on March 30, 1977 which took name the Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan(English Translation: Church of God in Christ Jesus, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth) then being forced to change name by the court couple times, and finally use the present name on January 13, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_Church_of_God_International
So ask yourself…what church you belong to? the church of (peter) the rock, the church founded by Jesus or or you join the church founded by man?
Dear, elmantheman
Your explanation of the Mat 16: 18-19 is overlapping and there is not logical thinking on it. Let me take one example if it.
You said that Matthew 16:19 implies that Jesus Christ was the one being mentioned to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever he loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. You wrote…..”(Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
But the verse implies that Jesus Christ was the one being mentioned to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever he loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Afterwhich Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. )”
The questions for you to clarify :
1. In what sense that you state that verse 16: 18 implies to Jesus? From the text, I believe you tend read (change) the word “you” in Matt 16: 19 as to Jesus? Why do you refers “you” to Jesus? Not to Simon?
If you said that this verse implies to Jesus then you mean the word “you” implies to Jesus and not to Peter. Then this verse according to “you” (NOT to Gospel of Matthew) will sound like “ I (Jesus) will give you (Jesus) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you ( “Jesus”) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you ( “Jesus”) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven…
I don’t think the author of the Gospel of Matthew would agree with you. If you say that that verse implies that Jesus is the one being mentioned to have the keys, then why didn’t he wrote the Gospel like u mean? In fact, the text the author did not write what u were saying. Maybe the author of the Gospel will say that you are the one who monopolize his Gospel and you are the hone who has the spirit of stumbling block and do not understand what is already clear in the Gospel.
2. Using your logical thinking on Matt 16: 19, the other question for you is, why you didn’t tend to say that the word “you” in Matt 16:18 also implies to Jesus?
3. What authority you have to overrule the author of the Gospel of Matthew?
4. What make your opinion is true?
5. Do I make sense?
It is clear that in Mat 16: 18 Jesus is speaking to Simon.
If you think the Rock is not refers to Peter, then why Jesus has to call and (change) Simon’s name with Peter? What is Jesus’ purpose to call Simon by the name of Peter? Of course Jesus has special intention to call Simon by the name of Peter in that context because Jesus knows that by Simon’s acknowledge that Jesus is Messiah, Simon is chosen by the Father (not the RCC) to be the Rock for Jesus’ church.
So the Father revealed to Simon that he is the Rock, and Jesus calls him to be the rock, the foundation of the church. So it is the Father also who chose Simon to be the rock of the church, (and not the RCC), but the Father and Jesus affirm what the Father did, to choose Simon to be Peter, to be church founded by Jesus and NOT the church founded by Bro. Eli Soriano which first registered on March 30, 1977 which took name the Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan(English Translation: Church of God in Christ Jesus, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth) then being forced to change name by the court couple times, and finally use the present name on January 13, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_Church_of_God_International
So ask yourself…what church you belong to? the church of (peter) the rock (the church founded by Jesus) or you join the church founded by man in 2004?
Dear, elmantheman
In Matthew 16:18-19, ( And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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. [Matt. 16: 18-19, RSV]
There are two things you need to know…
First Jesus promises that the destructive “power of death shall not prevail against” His Church. This verse, especially in light of Matt. 28:19-20 and 2 Tim. 2:2, suggests Apostolic Succession, the passing on of the discipleship to faithful men through the centuries, since Christ’s original disciples were mortal men. Secondly in verse 19, St. Peter is the only person to whom Jesus promises to give the keys of His kingdom. In the Bible, keys are a sign of authority (Isaiah 22:22; Rev. 1:18; 3:7). If you have ever accidentally been locked out of the house or car, you probably experienced the power of keys! Thirdly in verse 18, Christ gives Simon the name Peter, meaning rock, and promises that His Church will be built “on this rock.” In the original Greek text, petra is used for rock, while Petros is used for Peter. In Greek, nouns have gender. Petra, being the common Greek noun for rock, has a feminine gender and thus is not appropriate for a man’s name. To make it suitable for Simon, petra is given a masculine ending, resulting in Petros, Peter in Greek.
Elsewhere in the Bible, Simon Peter is also called Cephas (or Kephas). Cephas is from the word for ROCK in Aramaic, the language Jesus and the Apostles commonly spoke. In John 1:42, Jesus renames Simon as Cephas:
“So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). [John 1:42]
The footnote to this verse in the RSV Bible states: “From the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek respectively.” The Living Bible, a Protestant paraphrased edition, actually renders this verse as: “…but you shall be called Peter, the rock!”(see top) If Jesus did not establish St. Peter as the foundation rock of the Church, then it is quite strange that Jesus renamed him ROCK in two different languages!
Jesus and His Apostles were fluent in Scripture. In Matt. 16:19, Jesus is making reference to the rite of succession found in the Book of Isaiah:
In that day I (God) will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will … commit your (Shebna’s) authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. [Isaiah 22:20-22]
In verses 15-25, Eliakim is succeeding Shebna in the office of prime ministry. Eliakim is not a king but a prime minister under King Hezekiah (Isaiah 36:1-3, 22). The king of the Davidic dynasty had ministers who helped in governing (2 Sam. 8:15-18; 20:23-26). Likewise Jesus, being the King in the house of David (Luke 1:32-33), appoints St. Peter as His first prime minister by giving him “the keys of the kingdom.”
It should be noted that Jesus in Matt. 16:18-19 speaks in the future tense, as in a promise. Jesus at this point does not confer authority to St. Peter, so his later denial of Christ does not render it void. Christ actually prays for St. Peter before his denial:
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” [Luke 22:31-32]
It is only after this trial that Christ confers authority onto St. Peter in John 21.
The imagery in John 21 is different. Jesus is not referred to as King but as the Good Shepherd. In John 10:16 Jesus speaks of “one flock and one shepherd.” From the text it is obvious that the flock is the Church, while Jesus is the shepherd. Now in John 21:15-19, Jesus gives His earthly authority to St. Peter by telling him: “Simon, son of John…Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” Jesus is not telling St. Peter to literally feed a flock of sheep but to guide and care for His Church on earth.
A common objection against Peter’s primacy is based on Gal. 2:11-14 where St. Paul rebukes St. Peter (Cephas) for acting insincerely. This rebuke from St. Paul does not undermine St. Peter’s teaching authority, since St. Paul did not rebuke him for false teaching but for setting a bad example. (As an aside, St. Paul also set a bad example in Acts 16:3.) It must be remembered that St. Peter was a sinner like the rest of us (Luke 5:8,10). Likewise Nathan’s condemnation of King David in 2 Sam. 12 did not undermine David’s ruling authority but brought him to repentance. Finally, if St. Paul did not recognize St. Peter’s teaching authority, then why did he spend fifteen days with Peter (Cephas) during his early ministry (Gal. 1:18)?
There are examples of Peter exercising his leadership in the Acts of the Apostles (1:15-26; 5:1-11; 11:1-18); however, the best witness to Apostolic Succession and the Papacy can be found in the early Christian writings. An early witness to papal authority is the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This letter was written 96 A.D. in Rome by Pope Clement to restore order to the church in Corinth. Clement not only interferes with this church, but also apologizes for not acting sooner. In 190 A.D., St. Irenaeus of Lyons lists the Bishops of Rome (Popes) in his book, Against Heresies:
The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us. [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]
In 325 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea, writes The History of the Church and quotes St. Irenaeus’ list (V, 6). Eusebius also cites 1 Peter 5:13 as proof that St. Peter was in Rome, a.k.a. Babylon (II, 15).
Peter’s primacy is evident from the Bible; his name is always first in the lists of the Apostles (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Apostolic Succession was a fact of life in the early Church, as witnessed by the early Christian writings. The primacy of the present Pope is based on faith in Christ’s promise, that His Church built on Peter will not be overcome by the power of death (Matt. 16:18; 7:25).
Palangka,
There you go, the Catholic Church’s fabled history and let’s not forget of the succeeding and continuing reality of the shocking and horrific contribution of your mother church on the history of mutilation of mankind and blasphemy towards the God of Israel, even Jesus Christ.
Well, if I am wrong with what I know, then I will whole heartedly accept the correction of Bro Eliseo Soriano by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the holy men of God.
Let me just post my whole post about what I said.
Satan, an imitator
5, November 2007 • 13 Comments (Edit)
“Be on your guard against the yeast/leaven of the Catholic Church and her cohorts.” Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”
Satan, afterall, is an imitator, a crafty one. He is a deceiver and the father of lies. Let us have a closer look to an example of his imitation and craftiness, even his gospel about Peter being the Rock. But first let us read some verses to prove that even since time immemorial, there are other gospels that was not taught by Jesus Christ. Even the true gospel itself was adulterated by satan and his cohorts!
2 Corinthians 11:
1I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 2I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.
7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Peter being called a rock, is a proof of another Jesus. Jesus Christ is supposed to be the rock as spoken by God through his mouth.
Would you agree that Matthew 16 contains a prophesy? And you might find yourselves belonging to those prophesied on the Chapter that the Catholic Church is clearly trying to monopolize. Sadly, you may have the spirit considered as a stumbling block.
Based on the Chapter: Matthew 16, Jesus has prophesied, (God the Father speaking through Jesus Christ) that St Peter shall be maliciously used and be referred to as a rock. Some, having the mind of men not of God understood differently. But actually, St Peter, Simon Barjonas, was referred to by Jesus as a stone in this verse, having previously given him the name, Peter. In this chapter, through Jesus Christ, the God the Father until now is reminding Satan that the gates of hell shall not win over the Church of God, where Jesus Christ is the rock or foundation.
Let us see first how Peter acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
These verses show that it is the Father who shall reveal to us the divine understanding of who Jesus Christ is. Obviously, it is neither the Roman Catholic Church nor Satan who shall say if Jesus is the Rock or not, but the Father in Heaven.
To continue, Jesus Christ began to prophesy:
Mathew 16:
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
The next verse was even used by the Roman Catholic as part of their teaching to further prove that St Peter is the rock because of the giving of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 16:
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
But the verse implies that Jesus Christ was the one being mentioned to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever he loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Afterwhich, Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Matthew 16:
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
The “he” referred to here was Jesus Christ!
Matthew 18:
18″I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19″Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”
1 Corinthians 15:
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
The verses that followed, found below impart to Christians, including Peter, not to doubt the foundation of the Church, which is Jesus Christ, this is because some Jews failed to accept that Jesus Christ is a God and the son of God. Not only Jews shall be reading the scriptures but also those who has the spirit of the unbelieving Jews. Thus, Satan has his close watch, and unable to control his contempt, began rebuking Jesus Christ for the overwhelming prophecy.
Matthew 16:21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
So, in this verse, is Peter really the one trying to rebuke Jesus Christ? No, it is not Peter, it is Satan. It’s like the serpent telling Eve that she will not die when she eats the fruit of good and evil.
Genesis 3:4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
To continue, But Jesus Christ, knowing the mystery of Satan, replied:
Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Blatantly, we should not be shocked why the Roman Catholic Church is bragging their authority. This is because they have in mind the things of men, just like their “father,” not the things of God! Since then, Peter for them became the “Rock.” Catholics would even refer to every stories made by men that will benefit their claim, including the Aramaic language that they said was used by Matthew. Thus, Peter became the foundation of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church.
Even a brother in the Church of God knows this should not be and the complete reference for knowledge are those that God referred to contained in the HOLY BIBLE:
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that
readeth, and they that
hear the words of this PROPHECY,
and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
There you go, the Peter that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to monopolize is really Satan who is trying to tempt Jesus Christ! Satan believed this too for the lack of understanding. Satan neither have the capacity nor ability, even power to read the hearts of every man, what more to read Jesus Christ’s heart!
Do you still wonder why the Catholics and her daughter churches, even though they know that it is not the person of Peter who rebuked Jesus Christ, but the evil spirit that has spoken out of the mouth of Peter, still did not realize what was really happening that time? This is due to the lack of understanding they acquired from Satan as mentioned in these verses:
Romans 11:
7What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
9And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”
The Church of God was made a spectacle to angels too. Therefore it will not be hard to accept that even Jesus Christ was being watched by Satan during that time.
1 Corinthians 4:
9For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.
Satan really is a deceiver. He tries to imitate God and the teachings. God the Father spoke through Jesus Christ. Satan spoke through Peter.
Satan, as an imitator, has also built his own church together with the rivers of teachings that he tries to put in the hearts of every man. This church even gave birth to prostitutes based on Revelation 17. But be forewarned, he imitates the things of God to deceive people and even angels. Satan might have thought that Jesus Christ can be tempted like Eve. Even so, he might have thought too that Peter really is the rock because of his ignorance. Hence, he obviously used this situation to deceive people and angels. He made his own gospel, being preached by the Roman Catholic Church! To prove that different teachings and other gospels, even from the time of the Apostles, are existing already, let us read first the true Church mentioned in these chapters and verses:
1 Corinthians 11:
1Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Galatians 1:
1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the true chief cornerstone. Jesus is really the rock!
1 Corinthians 3:
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
From the verse, Jesus Christ will be the one helping Christians that will remain in the Church of God until the end.
Matthew 16:
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
To prove that the true church is the Church of God with a promise of salvation, Jesus Christ being the foundation and having the keys of the gates of heaven.
1 Corinthians 1
1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge—
6because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.
7Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
Matthew 16:
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
If you are wondering how you can start your study habits, try to visit http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com/
“Thank you God for all the blessings, which includes Bro Eli, and for those that we do not see, but shown to us by the Spirit of God! I still remain an unworthy servant.”
Palangka again,
“earthly explanations are bound to earth minded people”
Look who’s talking in terms of the name of the Church affiliation. Is Catholic Church biblical?
“Cleaving, joining to the foundation is totally different from building your own Church. When the foundation has been laid already, there is no need to build another one. Following all the commandments and learning the true gospel is cleaving to the Church of God.” Our foundation of truth is Jesus Christ – not any man, not a man, but God!
We’ll it became more vivid after hearing the topic in the recently concluded Pasalamat/Thanksgiving of the Members, Church of God, International last Saturday 01December2007 Philippine time.
Matthew 16:
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Really some of who were standing in that scene will never taste death, where worms died not and fire never quenched.
Mark 9:48 (New American Standard Bible)
where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.
If you have read even a single post of Bro Eli, more so, when you read it all, those posts are enough proof, even the verse below, that Bro Eli is concerned for our salvation and is warning as too of the danger/peril that a false teacher can lead us to. The same concern that he learned from the Apostles, the same who learned from Jesus Christ; by reading the Holy Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the holy men of God.
Colossians 2:18-19 (The Message)
Don’t tolerate people who try to run your life, ordering you to bow and scrape, insisting that you join their obsession with angels and that you seek out visions. They’re a lot of hot air, that’s all they are. They’re completely out of touch with the source of life, Christ, who puts us together in one piece, whose very breath and blood flow through us. He is the Head and we are the body. We can grow up healthy in God only as he nourishes us.
Mga Taga-Colosas 2:18 (Ang Salita ng Diyos)
18May taong nasisiyahan sa paggawa ng huwad na pagpapakumbaba at pagsamba sa mga anghel. Huwag ninyong hayaan ang gayong tao na dayain kayo at hindi ninyo makuha ang inyong gantimpala. Siya ay nagkukunwaring nakakita ng mga bagay na hindi naman niya nakita. Ang kaniyang isipang makalaman ay nagpalaki ng kaniyang ulo nang walang katuturan. 19Siya ay hindi nanatiling nakaugnay sa tunay na ulo, na kung saan ang buong katawan ay lumalago sa pamamagitan ng paglago na mula sa Diyos. Ito ay sa mga ibinibigay ng mga kasukasuan at ng mga litid na siyang nagpapalusog at nag-uugnay-ugnay sa buong katawan.
Colossians 2:18-19 (English Standard Version)
18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
Colossians 2:18-19 (King James Version)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
God bless us all!!
Base from my reading from the above posts i would like to comment and I will try to deal with the issue,weather St. Peter is the rock mentioned on Mathew 16:16-19. I am a catholic by the way , who want to share my faith in a respectful manner.
It might be worth posting the verses again for clarity;Matthew 16:16-19;’But who do you say that I am?Simon Peter answered,”you are the Messiah,the son of the living God.”And Jesus answered,Blessed are you Simon son Of Jonah!For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.And I tell you,you are Peter,and on this rockI will build my church and gates of hades will not prevail against it.Iwill give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,and whatever you bind on earth will be bound on heaven,and whatever you loose no earth will be loosed in heaven.
Now,we know that there is a play of words in here ,but an honest person would accept the most reasonable explanation which is the catholic position .First the word ‘petra in Greek is equivalent to Cephas in Aramaic which was the the very word use by Christ in that coversation.If petra in Greek is feminine it would be awkward to call St.Peter Simon Petra .So It is essentially nescesary that when they wrote the Gospel in to Greek they had no choice but to render it in musculine form- petros
Howerver, it doesn’t change the true meaning that Peter is the rock mentioned in the above verse .
Elmantheman claim that in this instance It was really the Father who is talking and not Jesus, He is basing his argument on patchy logic, and cannot be supported by sound reasoning.Christ Jesus is not the Father and Jesus is not a robot.Read it again,when Jesus said’I’ that is first person. that is grammar we have to follow otherwise you could make your own which no one could understand .Let me give you an example to open illustrate your faulty assumption;When Jesus was dying on the cross and said ,’I am thirsty’ was it the Father who said these words? And when Jesus said,’this is my body’was it really the Father who said it?Of course we believe that whatever the Lord Jesus said it’s perfectly in accordance with the Father .
God bless
winnie
To all ADD,
May God bless you all with wisdom and humility!!!
Notice and analize the story and think about your interpretation in Mathew 16;16 -19 .Elmanthe man says ,that the Father spoke through Jesus ,and Satan spoke through Peter! is this your official Add teaching?
Well the Bible say differently.Jesus said ,’not by flesh and blood ,but the Father who revealed this to you .Jesus said this to Peter after Peter confessed that Jesus is the messiah, the son of the living God.So was Jesus wrong when he said ,it is the Father who gave the revelation to Peter?I trust Jesus more than your interpretation.Again I say this because your logic would go against your very own belief,or in simple terms it is self contradictory.Why?Well, you said that the Father spoke through Jesus,was the Father wrong?Or are you saying that The Father is also the Satan.I don’t think you do,but your logic would go that direction.
You tried to use the verse in Matthew 16:23 to prove your point but it is not helpful to your case iether.It only proves that Peter is human that can be tempted as we are.He thought that Jesus came to be an earthly king and if Jesus die he would not be their Messiah.Thier view at that time about a saviour was like King David, that is to rule Israel or in our time a political figure. [remember Jesus was tempted by Satan bu failed]
Peter said that ,Jesus is the Messiah,the son of the living God.
Jesus said to Simon that he is Peter/Cephas/Rock in Matthew 16
Jesus said , I will build my church,hence he is the builder and not the rock in Matthew 16
Jesus said to Peter,I wil give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. that is clear symbol of authourity which was fulfilled by Peter after Jesus ascended to heaven.in fact Peter received the confirmation at the time when Jesus was about to go to heaven,when Jesus said,’feed the flocks,’tend the sheeps’,’tend my lambs'[John 21:15-17]
Peter was the head of the early church and it was acknowledge by all the apostles.Every time all the name of the apostles are mentioned Peter is always mentoined first
and Judas Iscariot was always the last.In like manner, Mr Elli Soriano’ name is always metioned first in your official journals/magazines followed by others.For the same reason that he is the head of ADD
Christ was referred to as foundation in I Cor 3 which is rightly so.For he is the foundation of our salvation in deed! and Catholics believe the same thing.
Jesus is the founder of his Church ,and the apostles are the foundation .Peter being the Cephas/rock was the head of the apostles When Jesus has gone to heaven he became the vicar of Christ on earth!
God bless us all
Winnie,
Are you insinuating that it is only for the sake of your own sound reasoning that people will believe you?
You fool, a sound reasoning is based on the scripture! Not on your vain philosophies!
For your information, more so, to those vain philosophers, a robot for now has no capability to think for itself, garbage in garbage out.
Did Jesus Christ really came down to earth to say that he will build his own Church? Can Jesus Christ build the Church of God by himself?
But Jesus Christ explained already that he is obeying his Father’s command.
John 15:10
If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love,
just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.
John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing;
I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
36″I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
John 6:38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Don’t give us your vain philosphy on using petros because of the awkwardness. If the Apostles who wrote that Peter is a Petra, And Jesus Christ is Petros then let it be as God told them. They wrote it not for your linguistic scrutiny, but by following the One who said it.
By the way, your priest baptised males with a name “Maria” right?
Why aren’t they using this vain philosophy of yours to prove the obvious mistakes of your Church? Is it because your Catholic Church asks for payment in baptism? Thus, they are obliged to follow the name given to a child even if it is awkward?
Why don’t you use your vain philosophy of yours to prove that your Catholic Church is Satan’s Church?
And you also pray in tagalog “Aba Ginoong Maria, napupuno ka ng Gracia…” in English, “Hail Mary full of grace…”
And now, the eyes that cannot see read. The ears that cannot hear, listened. And she never understood.
That is it for now. It’s either you got the point or you did not get it. May God bless you the grace to understand.
oh common! he got it wrong! first of all, Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek “lithos’ would have been used. second,Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.” What’s more,” four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha .What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”
if you ask why is it that kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’?Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?” , the answer is simple!
it is because jesus had no choice!Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
hey please go to http://www.catholic.com and grab a copy of the know the truth magazine so you could know more about the single universal church which jesus has bought with his own blood
Brother Elmantheman
Peace and love of Christ be with you. Sorry for the late respond to your comment.
We are discussing here about the topic Bro. Eli brought up in his article, ”Was Peter Really the Rock?” Even though Bro. Eli attempted to deny that Peter was really the Rock, but he has to admit that the name Peter means “Rock”, the name Jesus gave to Simon and truly Simon is the Rock, therefore we call Simon as Peter, the Rock. I want you to be aware that the idea of calling “Simon as Peter (in Aramic Chefas), or the Rock (English), is from Jesus Himself and NOT from other people, not from other Christian later on, NOT even from RCC. It is FROM Jesus himself. So Jesus CALLED Simon PETER and Brother Eli does not want to call Peter, the Rock…Is it funny isn’t it?
Jesus did not call Simon, “You are “a” Peter”, you are “little pebble” but you are “peter,” you are the rock.. So Simon is Peter, and ONLY Simon is called by the name of PETER, and not other disciples, not other Christian, NOT even Jesus, though Jesus is the “corner stone” but we don’t call Jesus as “Peter” right? We don’t call Jesus Peter right? We call Jesus Christ….So when we mention “Peter”, we know what we mean. When we call PETER, we don’t mean Jesus right? Only Simon is Peter, Simon is the Rock. So those who deny Simon as the Rock, deny Jesus Himself who have called Simon as Peter…
Jesus never called other person, other community, as “Peter” the Rock right? Therefore, your quotations from the Bible regarding to the word “rock” needed to put in its context in order to understand those words. For example the word “apostle” we can use that word “apostle” to call you, to call bro. Eli, to call other pastors as apostle depend on what context we understand it…but when we mention “the apostles” we know what we mean right? It is for the TWELVE..(and Paul and Barnabas) The same case with the word “rock”. Even thought St. Paul or Peter himself use the word rock about Jesus, but we don’t call Jesus as “Peter” right? ONLY SIMON is PETER.
And remember also that when Jesus called Simon as PETER, the other disciples did not question or complain about it. They all accepted that Simon as “Peter”, as the Rock, until now we call Simon as Peter, and not “a” peter”
The second phrase, “upon this rock, I will build my church” Here is the trouble for many people including Bro. Eli. It is clearly that this phrase “ upon this “rock” Jesus refers “rock” to “the rock” Who is the Rock? Simon Peter. Jesus builds his church in the foundation of Peter, meaning Peter and the disciples, Peter as the head. He built His Church on earth, upon the foundation of Simon Peter as the leader of the Apostles, and the Apostles will continue to work the mission of Jesus in unity with Peter. And we celebrate the birth of the Church is on day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was sent down.
Elmantheman, even though you might not accept that Peter was the Rock, but you have to admit that the word Peter meaning Rock….and only Simon is called Peter…
Elmantheman….
I want to invite you to see more the meaning of the Church built on Peter…
When we learn about the history of early Christian, the history of the Bible, the history of the Church’s tradition, the whole history of the Church until now, we come to believe that Jesus really founded His church upon Simon “Peter” as the Rock. I can say that because the Church founded upon Peter has some characteristic of Simon personalities. You and I know that Simon is very weak person right? He is not a perfect person. Like Simon, the Church is also not perfect because the Church consists of human and divine aspect. There are many ups and down in the life of the Church, many troubles (some troubles you have already mentioned, and I personally admitted that because that is part of the history of the Church that is “operated” by human being…human made mistakes right?). And there are many challenges will come, maybe also the challenge from you too but as Jesus said to Simon Peter, that the Church will not fail, the Church will not collapses, the Church is always reformed, and the Church always prevail every trouble and challenge because it is founded upon Simon Peter, the Lord said to him, the power of evil will not overcome it. Even though the Church has many weaknesses but it does not mean the Church lost its grace and authority. Just like Peter himself. There were many times Peter made mistakes but he always come back to Jesus ask for forgiveness. He denied Jesus, he did not practice what he teaches, but he is still be Peter, the other disciples still accept Peter as their leader, they did not condemn him, the still respect him, and Peter has the full authority over the other disciples. Peter gave his life for Jesus by dying on the cross upside down. Peter is the Rock… This is the same image of the Church. In its weakness, (like Peter) the Church is carrying the message of God like vessel on earth. Many times the people of the Church fails, the people in the Church make mistake including our leaders, but its still be the Church of Christ like we accept and respect Peter as the leader of the Twelve. Like Simon always be “Peter”, the Rock, the Church also always be “the Church” founded by Jesus. After 2000 years the Church still exist and has significant role in the world.
Elmantheman, the church based on Peter is a humble church…a church that consist of sinners…we are all sinner…. We are all weak..like Peter….we are all need JESUS to purify us….maybe you are not…because your Church is perfect and never fail…good luck for you….But we are the church of sinners…we need Christ to always give us strengths and lift us up when we fail….Just like PETER…
Secondly, I would like to comment on your question “Is Catholic Church biblical”?
(When I was reading your question it sounds to me like the Pharesees tries to “disturb” Jesus saying, oh Jesus… you do not do this, you do not do that…. you don’t do things according to Law, according to Bible. But Jesus said that He came not to “change” anything from the Law, from the Bible because Jesus is always with the Law.)
I want to tell you that your question about “Is Catholic Church is Biblical” for me is “Out of Question” (sorry if I am being too proud here…) Anyway what do you mean by “Church Bible based?” Can you tell me what does it mean?
For me the Church always walk with the Bible, the Bible is our Guide, the center for us, and in fact the “fathers” of the RCC were the ones who gather all the words of God, (they discussed and debated which books really inspired) and then formed those books become what we called “Bible” today and in which “you” use to judge RCC. Again, your question is out of date for me. But I can understand your situation why you asked that question because you are not sure in what foundation you stand, and also about your church if your church is Biblical or not therefore you are really concerned about being “biblical or not” , but for RCC that is not a question.
Your group is worry so much because you are not sure in what foundation you stand. Therefore, you pick up one verse to support your possition and then claim that your church is biblical church. Hey but that is okay, no problem for me as far as your feel you have a “biblical” church. But the most important thing is if your “biblical church” carries the mission of Jesus that is to love other especially to love your enemy.
So like your Bro. Eli he always “love” the Manalo Church by critizing them that is good for him, and for you too because you guys do biblical thing. 🙂 He never said bad things about other church, he love his enemy so much…and you can do also like to critize people and say bad things to other, as part of your “love enemy”. So your “biblical church has to carry the message of love and peace…
Peace and love of Christ be with you….
Yes,you said Peter means rock but it doesn’t mean that if Peter was a rock,he is now the foundation of the church as stated on Matthew 16:18.Read carefully the blog and try to understand.The chief cornerstone is our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 4:10 Take note, all of you, and all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you put to death on the cross, whom God gave back from the dead, even through him is this man now before you completely well.
Act 4:11 He is the stone which you builders had no use for, but which has been made the chief stone of the building.
Act 4:12 And in no other is there salvation: for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, through which we may have salvation.