Answering Protestant Objections to "On This Rock"

The go-to passage for many Catholics defending the papacy is Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." But some Protestants argue that by "on this rock" Jesus wasn't referring to Peter, but to something else. Joe Heschmeyer explains why this reading of scripture doesn't make any sense.
DONATE: give.catholic....
SUBSCRIBE: / catholiccom
WEBSITE: www.catholic.com/
Previously a litigator in Washington D.C. and then a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Joe now works as a Catholic apologist, blogging at Shameless Popery. You can contact him at [e-mail].

[@conj1124]

Thank you Catholic answers. You are God's instrument in spreading the truth about God and His word. Your deep knowledge about the faith is truly edifying! God bless and more power!

[@johnyang1420]

Yes!!!!

[@Super-chad]

Dude, this answers *so much*, and to great depths too! There's just absolutely *no way* any Protestant can go around this Truth

[@markm4033]

They still anyways. The ones I bring this up to, they still hold onto their error.

[@pepethepatriot7524]

@@markm4033 It's ok sweetie, you don't realize how wrong you are and will end up being here during the Tribulation. I will pray for you deary. When Jesus said he was building his church on this rock, he was referring to a starting point for all who are saved. All who are saved are his church. Your ignorance and arrogance will be your downfall.

[@markm4033]

@@pepethepatriot7524 no, it is you who is in error. Consider this my friend, name changes have meaning. Means they are given a new mission. Abram was renamed to Abraham, to become the father of all nations. Jesus clearly spoke directly to Simon, who He renamed into Kepha, meaning Rock. St. Peter is the rock that Jesus built His Church.

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@markm4033 If Peter isthe true rock why 2 epistles in the new testament. Paul has 13 epistles. Read peter epistles and observe any reference to himself as the true foundation. The building is of living stones not singular stone. The high priest breastplate had 12 stones representative of the 12 Tribes,nowthose same living stones are the 12 apostles. Nowhere does Paul refer to Peter as the stone or a Pope or Peter himself.

[@markm4033]

@@frederickanderson1860 ask yourself this question. Jesus is the Rock, but who else had this title? Simon did, given by Jesus Himself. Think about it.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

Jimmy Akin has a really cool explanation on this as well; Jesus makes three statements, and immediately follows the statement by explaining what the statement means: 1a) Blessed are you, Simon 1b) for Flesh and Blood did not reveal this to you, but the Father in Heaven 2a) Therefore I say, you are Peter (name-change, signifies new mission, as "Rock" is not a name until now) 2b) and on this Peter I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail 3a) I give to you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven 3b) what you bind is bound, what you loose is loosed It would make absolutely no sense to discount the middle section: You are blessed, having received direct knowledge from God the Father; therefore you are a small and insignificant pebble; but I'm giving you authority to bind and loose in heaven anyway. Um... what?

[@cesareomartinez6539]

And there is another verse where Jesus Christ asked 3 times to St. Peter And St. Peter says :you know that i love you, then Jesus Christ told to St. Peter: TAKE CARE MY LAMBS, So here Jesus Christ made so clear that his Church must be shepherded by St. Peter. WHY THE PROTESTANTS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS?

[@Super-chad]

Beautiful analysis and exegesis

[@Cato229]

@@cesareomartinez6539 Because, by the time they encounter Jesus' religion (not their own/not their daddy's), they have been misreading the Bible for years. When they turn to the people they thought were Christians, they find them silent, misled, or outright deceitful about the history of the Church and proper exegesis. It is like asking why a man with broken legs can't run. Every time he puts his weight down, it hurts. Beyond this, many Protestants basically think of themselves as Peter. They feel like they pick up the Bible and Jesus personally guides them to the perfect understanding of the text and that they are in a position to teach others about that perfect understanding. Many also believe they have a personal guarantee of heaven no matter what they do for the rest of their lives. Asking them to accept the history of the Church means they have to admit that was all false boasting. It means they actually have to study the Church to understand the religion of Jesus. It probably means they now have a duty to engage many of their friends and family and defend Christianity for the first real time in their lives. It is a lot easier to defend the religion of your parents against fact-quoting historians than it is to defend historical facts against your parents. This is why standing up for truth takes strength and grace, even in the privacy of your own heart.

[@Cato229]

@I believe in Him What a nice thought!

[@rhwinner]

That's _Dr_ Luther to you...

[@hervedavidh4117]

Jesus is the architect! I like This one !

[@cletusnigints4501]

Jesus is the architect and Peter is the platform or foundation on which Jesus wants to build his church. Jesus wants to use Peter to build his church. Two things that Protestants have never read in the Bible. They are: 1. Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 2. Jesus asks Peter to take care of his sheep. I believe in these so I will be a Catholic for life.

[@A.S2400]

I thought Seth Rollins was the architect ?

[@row1landr]

@Eric The Christian yea, well, you know when you say my best friend is my "rock", or my spouse is my "rock"....? Well, in that fashion, Jesus is my "rock".... but when He told Peter that you are the rock, Jesus meant literally the foundation stone in which Jesus would build His Church..

[@rhwinner]

@@A.S2400 No, Rollins is just the project manager.

[@A.S2400]

@@rhwinner 😂😉

[@Scientist_Albert_Einstein]

It is a universal truth that Petros (Πέτρος) is the masculine of Petra (πέτρα) in the Greek language. The Greek names of males end with "ος" for example: Petros (Πέτρος) Alexios (Αλέξιος) Aurelios (Αυρήλιος) Leontios (Λεόντιος) Pontios (Πόντιος) Pilatos (Πιλάτος) Aquarios (Υδροχόος) Arios (Άριους) Artemos (Άρτεμος) Augustos (Αύγουστος) Brutos (Βρούτος) John 1:42 "...."You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas." When you translate Cephas to Greek, the literal translation is Petra ("πέτρα") which means STONE, but because Simon is a male, the translator cannot give him a name ending with "α" because that is feminine name in Greek. The translator has to give him a male name by putting "ος" in the name, thus creating a new word and the male name becomes Petros ("Πέτρος), which means "Male of stone" or "Masculine of stone" or "man stone" or "macho stone" or any description that makes it clear that Simon is a male! The literal translation of Matthew 16:18 reads: "And I tell you, you are "man stone", and on this stone I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." That is why the catholic church is teaching the truth, because Matthew 16:18 literally translates to: "And I tell you, you are "Stone Male", and on this stone I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." AMEN, we Catholics have the truth! And all it takes is to ask someone who speaks Greek to translate it for you and explain what it means. Heck, if you speak Spanish you can see it yourself without asking a Greek, Petra is a name given to females only and it means Piedra (Stone) and Pedro (Stone) is the name given to males. Also, the Greek "Petra" is used in our daily life, for example: Petrify means to become stone and the word derives from Petra (Stone). The Greek "πετρέλαιο" which means "petroleum", this comes from the Greek word "Petro" which means stone. That is why Petroleum is literally translated as "Stone Oil" because petroleum is literally oil derived from stone (animals that have been petrified over millions of years.) Protestants stop teaching lies that are contrary to the Greek language and contrary to biblical scripture!

[@andrewfrancois6982]

In addition to all this, the difference in meaning between Petros and Petra doesn't even exist in Koine Greek! It only exists in Attic Greek, a dialect spoken centuries before Christ.

[@isiwaktu2525]

@@andrewfrancois6982 which means?

[@cletusnigints4501]

Wonderful. That explains everything. Those verses are not in the Protestant Bible.

[@Scientist_Albert_Einstein]

@Jesusis Lord I'm glad that you want to hear the truth, for it is written that knowing the truth will set you free! It just takes some one to guide us and show us the truth. Keep digging for the truth and you will eventually find it. Jesus also let Simon cephas son of John in charge of Jesus's sheep and lambs (Jesus's congregation, Jesus's herd); and it is written in john 21:15-17. God bless!

[@levymanlapig8970]

@ Isi Waktu Andrew C. Francois means that because the N.T. was written in Koine Greek where there there is no distinctìon between petros and petra, "Peter" simply means "rock" --- if the N.T. were written in Attic Greek, then the distinction between petros and petra would matter and play a significant factor in deciphering what "Peter" really means. Peace and blessings ...

[@brandonmanderson]

This guy is AMAZING! Wow!

[@cesareomartinez6539]

And Jesus Christ changed the name Simon to kefas(aramaic =rock) ,Jesus Christ gave the key of heaven to St. Peter and JESUS CHRIST ASKED 3 TIMES TO ST. PETER: DO YOU LOVE ME? AND ST. PETER SAYS: YES YOU KNOW THAT I LOVE YOU, THEN JESUS CHRIST TOLD TO ST. PETER: TAKE CARE MY LAMBS, So here Jesus Christ made so clear that his lambs (CHURCH) must be shepherded by St. Peter

[@PurpleObscuration]

Rock in Latin is "Petra" that is the origin of the name "Peter"

[@voidremoved]

he is wrong tho.

[@gracianomendoza8671]

Can I further explain it by binding Matthew 16:18 to Luke 22:32 where Jesus prays that after His crucufixion Peter's faith will not fail but instead be strengthened to lead the apostles.

[@cletusnigints4501]

You may also want to read John 21: 15-17 where Jesus asks Peter to take care of his sheep.

[@voidremoved]

@@cletusnigints4501 Peter is an hireling and an hireling flees. But Jesus is the Good shepherd and lays down his life for the sheep... We know his voice, we do not know Peters voice.

[@joycegreer9391]

No you cannot. Jesus knew Satan was going to test Peter which is why he prayed Peter's faith would not fail. This was before the Holy Spirit, and Peter was not the leader of the Apostles...lol. They were all equal.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@cletusnigints4501 Why did He ask Peter three times, and Peter was grieved? This was Peter's restoration, not a special assignment.

[@georgepierson4920]

@@voidremoved That is because you see Peter as the enemy.

[@tesschavit3009]

Thank you apologists, God bless you all defending our catholic faith.

[@catholiccom]

Get Joe Heschmeyer's new book, "Pope Peter: Defending the Church's Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis," from Catholic Answers Press today! shop.catholic.com/pope-peter-defending-the-churchs-most-distinctive-doctrine-in-a-time-of-crisis/

[@michaelmonsoon3919]

Scott hanh also has a great video about Peter being the rock per Aramaic language and also brings in the old testament understanding and lineage of the keys and power to bound and loosen. Utube should have it.

[@espeditacastellaw241]

That was Sweet! Love the show and love to keep learning about the faith.

[@patriciaedwards2833]

My understanding of this scripture is that Jesus meant that his church would be built on Peter’s recognition of Who Christ was. All who truly recognise Christ’s Oneness with the Father are part of his church and are receptive to the intervention of Christ in their lives through Grace, to build further spiritual realisation and strength.

[@arnoldmaglalang5522]

Peter means Rock

[@PeterJohn-hl3ox]

If the Protestants are right - then Jesus would call Simon, 'Peter' for no apparent reason. The explanation is just pure expertise.

[@levymanlapig8970]

Christ said, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona ! For flesh and blood has not *revealed* this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you you are *Peter* ( *rock* ), and on this *rock* I will build my church ...". Why did Christ *not just say* "... on this *revelation* (by the Father) --- or *confession* (of Peter), I will build my church ..." ? Why did Christ rename Simon Bar-Jona with *Peter* in that very significant moment ? Why did HE address or talk directly to Simon Bar-Jona (and not to all the apostles) in this way, " *And I tell you, you are Peter* ... " ? It is simply because Christ intended or willed to build his church upon Peter/Rock/Cephas --- and the only way to give a different meaning or agenda to those words of Christ in Mt.16 is to cite various bible verses saying, *Christ is the Rock of salvation, the Rock of refuge, the spiritual Rock, the Chief cornerstone, etc* --- all of which have nothing to do or are not related at all to the intended founding of the church upon Peter. Needless to say, *Christ never said that Peter was the Rock of salvation, refuge, etc., but merely the Rock upon whom HE intended or willed to build his church* --- meaning to lead, or to have stewardship of the church.

[@TruePT]

10/10 explanation!

[@davidblyth5495]

That's in line with Catholic teaching

[@ipso-kk3ft]

Learning something new everyday, thanks Joe!

[@vSwampFox]

It’s crystal clear to everyone except those who don’t want it to be true.

[@slimm2k466]

As a protestant, I have always been taught, heard, and understood that the Rock was Peter. This "Jesus being the rock" is new to me.

[@johnyang1420]

Peter is the rock. Jesus was the ultimate rock. Check out Why We Are Catholic by Trent Horn

[@davidblyth5495]

There are protestant scholars who have the same view as you

[@slimm2k466]

@@johnyang1420 I seen it thanks

[@slimm2k466]

@@davidblyth5495 Yeah I know. But to be honest after further research since this post. My view has changed. I do believe Jesus is the Rock 🙏🏽

[@davidblyth5495]

@@slimm2k466 indeed Jesus is the Rock but in this case it was Simon bar Jonah. If it were not so, then he would not be called Peter which is the English version from the Greek Petros translated from the Aramaic Cephas. Furthermore Jesus promises to give Simon (Peter) the keys to His kingdom in the fashion that King David gave his official his keys when he was away. Then there's the writing of the early Church which confirms this

[@katolik_militan]

The answer is simple : Jesus did not speak greek, He spoke Aramaic. He used the word "Kefas", not "Petra" nor "Petros" .

[@katolik_militan]

nosuchthing8 yes indeed. Just trying to make a point that is easy for the viewers

[@gomezjkv]

Jesus has to be referring to Peter’s belief in Him as the Christ when He calls him “rock” just as when Jesus calls Peter “satan” in verse 23. When Peter rebukes Jesus after He tells His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and be put to death Jesus, in both instances, is addressing Peter’s beliefs. All of the disciples had misconceptions of what the Messiah would do and Peter just never got it. Even after being called Satan by Jesus for “thinking as men” Peter does it again when they came to arrest Jesus and he attacks the servant of the High Priest. Peter was never able to restrain his carnality.

[@codewalters]

Great explanation.

[@jonlannister345]

I remember reading that bit of scripture and thinking everyone had lied to me my whole life... Seems like that happens a lot while reading Scripture, that it doesn't say what everyone kept telling me it does.

[@marcihf217]

Thank you

[@josephssewagudde8156]

One has to labour even out of common sense to explain that Jesus didn't mean Peter. It is even surprising that protestants buy such a forged explanation leaving aside the explicitly clear one!

[@frankc392]

When I was a Lutheran, I wasn't taught that Jesus was referring to himself. I was taught that Jesus was referring to the statement Peter made: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The statement is the "rock" that the Church us built upon and Peter is named "the Rock" because he figured it out first.

[@mordimerlives]

That doesn't really help out the protestant at all. Let's say the 'rock' equals the idea that "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Therefore 'You are Rock and on this idea I will build my Church..so that this Idea of me being the Christ is going to be the bedrock of the Church. And you Peter are so linked to this idea and the fact that God revealed it to you, that I'm going to change your birth name to this 'idea' so that this foundational idea and your name indistinguishable from eachother. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you lose on earth will be loosed in heaven..And in about 15 years I'm gonna give you another foundational vision whereby the old convent prohibitions on meat will be made void on your word alone.. That really makes a distinction without a difference.

[@HeroQuestFans]

@@mordimerlives right, unless you take it even further, and presume that "you" here refers to ANY believer in Christ, making every Christian able to bind and loose... and have the keys to the kingdom of heaven (the keys only ever explicitly being given in this case, not repeated when Christ says similar words to all the apostles).

[@annettea4334]

@@HeroQuestFans Except that the "you" here of more modern Bibles, is the singular "thee" in the KJV.

[@Cato229]

@@mordimerlives Really good point. Another note for the Lutheran's: Christians never believed this. There are a lot of possible readings you could insert into ancient texts. If those possible readings go against the history of the religion, they are not defining that religion but obscuring and disputing it.

[@voidremoved]

No he is rock, because he has a heart of stone! But Jesus will raise Peter on the last day and might give him a new heart!

[@bcat6206]

My understanding was that Jesus was referring to the message Peter proclaimed as the rock

[@ericgatera7149]

Excellent comment. Thanks.

[@paul_storytiemimages]

Solid rock statement was made by Peter, so upon this faith i will biuld my church,

[@balukuroben7458]

Protestants reject scripture when it proves the Catholic church teaching right . Mathew16:19 is very clear reference to Peter . Jesus is the one who named Simon ,kefa , for a purpose of Mathew16:19.

[@voidremoved]

not at all. And if you like scripture so much then please tell me where in the Bible Jesus says we should worship Mary? On what page of Bible does it say "Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Mary"? On what page of the Bible does it say to make objects with our hands and then worship those objects? Like statues or Mary like relics or bones of the saints etc that Catholics and orthodox worship and lie and say they do not worship. It does NOT say this and I talked with the Pope and he now wont kiss the ring and he let LGBTQ come

[@hendrikSingerin]

​​@@voidremovedDan anda jawab ayat mana yang menyatakan kita merayakan hari paska jatu pada bulan April,atau Natal pada bulan Desember,dan anda tau bahwa itu tradisi suci katholic yang protestan pakai, dan kalender yg protestan ikut pakai itu dari hasil katholc.

[@johndusak8147]

I would like to say hi to everybody the perfect stranger

[@Thrasher796]

I think the missing piece is Ephesians 2:20 “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” Yes the church is built upon peter but also the other apostles. They were the ones who first went and started founding churches and of course Jesus is the prime founder and its all about him. You could also see it as the foundation is the apostles(New Testament) the prophets(Old Testament) and Jesus as the chief corner stone because Jesus is the Word of God in flesh John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

[@lanceneubauer1369]

Beautifully put

[@rlr0313]

The church is represented by all true believers but their is only one true head (Rock)! That is Peter as Jesus made clear! He was given full authority!

[@Thrasher796]

@@rlr0313 Christ never said peter was head of the church. Jesus is in fact the only true head of the church Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

[@rlr0313]

@@Thrasher796 Matthew 16:15-20 But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 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. 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.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.[4] I think it’s very clear Peter was given full authority by Jesus!

[@johnyang1420]

@@Thrasher796 Matthew 16:13-19

[@ClergetMusic]

Your statement regarding Protestants treating differences between grammatical genders as completely different words is completely true. I've experienced it in multiple ways now. Not only the petros/petra, but also solo/sola when applied to scriptura. Some of them think solo scriptura, which is grammatically incorrect, is different from sola scriptura. This is one of the ways they try to tell we Catholics that we don't understand their doctrines, so we can't possibly be correct when we say that sola scriptura, etc. is unbiblical.

[@trismegistus2881]

Yeah, the grammar of solo scriptura seems to make no sense, as I would argue...

[@Msc762]

Peter is the rock 🪨

[@cynthiax56]

If Jesus fave authority to Peter, the 2 of them are one...If parents put a babysitter in charge of their child, obediance to the babysitter is obediance to the parent

[@user-xv5sk6wi4w]

Truth always wins out if you honestly want to seek it.

[@sulongenjop7436]

Protestants try to deny the truth of Peter being appointed as the rock of Jesus Church.

[@angelicagomeznavarrette6460]

God bless you all always.

[@geobori]

By the way, if Jesus really did bless a literal rock in this passage, as some protestants say, then that nullifies their objections to Catholics blessing objects.

[@bthongni55]

If the Church is built on Peter a man, the assurance that the gates of hades shall not prevail against it is very meaningful, for it means that there would be divine help if necessary. The conversion of Paul is one instance of divine intervention at the time of crisis. On the other hand, the assurance is meaningless if the Church were founded on Christ - the God. Who can fight against God?

[@TheBibleCode]

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder(arch Ki Tek Ton) Architect , and someone else is building on it.(apollos) But each one should build with care.

[@themac2379]

All you have to ask is what peter thought. He answers it in 1 Peter 2.

[@atgred]

‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭2:13‬ ‭KJV “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;” ‬‬

[@MariaB..]

@@atgred - Just an "FYI"... "Listen then, kings, and understand; rulers of remotest lands, take warning; 2 hear this, you who govern great populations, taking pride in your hosts of subject nations! 3 For sovereignty is given to you by the Lord and power by the Most High, who will himself probe your acts and scrutinise your intentions. 4 If therefore, as servants of his kingdom, you have not ruled justly nor observed the law, nor followed the will of God, 5 he will fall on you swiftly and terribly. On the highly placed a ruthless judgement falls; 6 the lowly are pardoned, out of pity, but the mighty will be mightily tormented. 7 For the Lord of all does not cower before anyone, he does not stand in awe of greatness, since he himself has made small and great and provides for all alike; 8 but a searching trial awaits those who wield power. 9 So, monarchs, my words are meant for you, so that you may learn wisdom and not fall into error;" (WISDOM OF SOLOMON, 6:1-9) God bless you.

[@healhands5760]

Petros and Petra? the greeks are not stupid to name a man with feminine name. thus protestants want to say: "You are Mr. Rock, and on this Ms. Rock I will build my church."

[@Happy_HIbiscus]

dude, ya'll handle this better than i would

[@concrete3030]

Also Martha and Andrew both make the same exact stmt about Jesus yet Jesus never says Andrew or Martha is the or a rock

[@user-sd8vy1yb4r]

the correct translation from the greek, is that peter was referred to as the sediment of the rock, not the single rock. peter was not the head of the church in jerusalem, and there is no evidence he was ever in rome. he stated, himself, he was just another elder in the church. Jesus said He was the head of the church, and all of His followers were priests.

[@georgepierson4920]

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom. In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.” Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom. Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace-the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative! Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes-without losing the authority those keys represent. It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give-the keys of the kingdom of heaven-thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

[@TheBlackToedOne]

Truly appreciate the actual use of the word "exegesis". So many people try to shoehorn scripture into their own interpretation to make it fit instead of adjusting their interpretation to meet scripture. With that being said, I'm still not 100% on this explanation and I'm still exploring it. For example, this conversation was held on Mt. Hermon and that place was universally known by all people regardless of race, religion or creed in that region as being high in supernatural activity due to all the pagan worship and rituals performed there, especially in one area known as Pan's Grotto. All kinds of sacrifice going on, especially human and a high ratio of child/infant sacrifice. It was widely considered a portal between the underworld and this world. By having this particular conversation with the disciples at this specific location, Jesus was standing at what was literally considered hell's front door. One of the things that gives me pause about Peter being the rock that Jesus will build his church on is the choice of words. Why didn't Jesus say, "You are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church" instead of "and upon THIS rock..."? It just seems as if there was an intentional delineation between the two rocks regardless of translation, gender, etc. Ignore the entomology for a moment and look at sentence structure. I understand the part about what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven giving the disciples' great power and I can understand Peter being called Rock and having that binding authority, but I still think that while possible it isn't a solid "yes" that those two are exclusively intertwined. I can see a realistic instance where they could functionally, intentionally be two separate, unique stand-alone statements spoken in succession. These are the questions I'm still trying to answer. Not saying it's right or wrong; just saying I'm still too painfully ignorant to have an opinion yet.

[@joycegreer9391]

"shoehorn scripture into their own interpretation to make it fit instead of adjusting their interpretation to meet scripture"---That is Catholicism. It's called eisegesis. Jesus does not build His Church on a man, and all the Apostles were given the same gifts and abilities. The Apostles were also a one-time only position, no succession. They were also not leaders/heads of any of the churches. They were missionaries and teachers.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

When the passage must mean anything other than what it plainly says, you might be a protestant.

[@lartiga]

The context reveals the true. New Jerusalem bible 4:11 This is the stone which you, the builders, rejected but which has become the cornerstone. Only in him is there salvation;

[@kapitankapital6580]

I don't think the issue is Jesus calling Peter the rock of the Church (although arguably you could say he is referring to Peter's proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God as the foundation of the Church). The issue is the idea that this passage justifies a line of infallible popes descending from Peter. Hell, a few lines further down Jesus rebukes Peter, calling him Satan for suggesting the Crucifixion shouldn't happen, that's hardly a good start for a supposedly infallible church leader. And don't forget that Peter denied Jesus three times, again, if Peter was imbued by papal authority at this point that's a bit of a problem, no? Peter was certainly an important figure in the early Church, but that's about all you can honestly get from this passage.

[@Sean-lv6fx]

If you think adding critical detail means bad exegesis isn't that what you're doing when you state he must have called Peter Cephas in Matthew16:18? The text doesn't say that it differentiates between petros and petra, petros being the masculine noun and petra and ekklésia being the feminine nouns. It could be argued that the feminine nouns were used because that is how the Church is often described in the New Testament, in the feminine(2Corinthians11:2, Ephesians5:21-33, Revelation19:7-8) etc. It still seems clear that he is giving Peter custodianship and authority over the Church to bind and loose. Christ was referred to as petra twice in 1Corinthians10:4, importantly he is referred to as the spiritual rock(petra) because that spiritual rock is his Body the Church(Colossians1:18).

[@sololoquy3783]

Just reject it.. Deny Peter's authority. After all, it is not the first time someone knew the truth, yet chose to abandon it. Protestantism weren't the first rejection.

[@Mr.mallaer]

In Greek and many other languages, nouns are gendered, in English they aren’t so for English speakers they think because the word changes form that it’s automatically different meaning, which is not true. It would be grammatically incorrect to refer to Peter using feminine form of rock or Petra, the grammar demands masculine form of the word.

[@annettea4334]

In French it's the same word, Pierre and pierre, so the play on words is the same as in Aramaic. I'm sure French-speaking Protestants have a way of getting around that inconvenience.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Jesus said it was his church he is the author and finisher of our faith.

[@calebconleymusic]

If Peter is the rock as you suggest, it does not begin to support the common Catholic argument that it is evidence for the Roman Catholic Church being the one true church.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

Jesus started a church…period! The Jews called the followers of Christ the Nazarenes. It’s in the Bible. The Nazarenes were more or less an unapproved splinter group like the Essenes. The first Christians called themselves the Way. That’s in the Bible too. A short time later Christs Church became known as Catholic. Why? Because it was the only Christian church. The earliest written expression of this fact was was in 107AD. God bless you.

[@zacharynelson5731]

It is actually because then we have a visible reference point in history to begin studying the rest of the church off of.

[@johnm.speight7983]

Relax Joseph, Jesus has your back !

[@PInk77W1]

If u are a Protestant If u take every word out of the New Testament That mentions Peter, your church doesn’t change one single bit. That’s scary

[@tahitisecrets]

Who was the successor of Peter?

[@LaurenceNaseb-si7nl]

His successors is the Pope

[@chuckmeister5105]

Ah, tailor-made! Thanks for uploading this, Catholic Answers! So may I start a discussion here?

[@malleusdei1520]

Ja, Chuck. Discuss.

[@johnyang1420]

Why would Jesus give the keys to himself?

[@chuckmeister5105]

@@johnyang1420 He gave the keys to Peter. It was through Peter, when he spoke, that Pentecost occurred. And when Peter met Cornelius, the Gospel opened to the Gentiles.

[@johnyang1420]

Chuck Meister Yes, Jesus gave the keys to Peter which conferred his authority to the Catholic church. This is where Catholic church gets the authority.

[@user-jd9zm4jf3t]

Jesus is my ROCK. You are free to choose yours

[@zacharynelson5731]

If you follow Christ then you’ll have to eventually become catholic.

[@sulongenjop7436]

But Jesus said, Simon is a rock!!!😂

[@patriciaedwards2833]

I am neither a Protestant nor a practising Catholic, though throughout my life I have been both. Through my spiritual experiences however, I understand how Peter knew that Christ was the Son of God, because my experiences, some granted by my spiritual teacher, Adi Da Samraj, would have been the same as those of Peter. Recognition of a true God Realiser is given by Grace, and is a Rock against which no negative forces can prevail.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

[@cesareomartinez6539]

Because GOD knows everything and Jesus Christ is GOD he knew that it wasn't St. Peter who was talking at that moment it was the devil who was tenting St. Peter , WHAT DO YOU THINK, WHO WAS THE ONE WHO DIDN'T WANT TO THE PROPHECY BECOMES REALITY THAT THE SON OF MAN DIE IN THE CROSS TO SAVE THE WORLD? ANSWER: THE DEVIL. And after that JESUS CHRIST Asked 3 times to St. Peter

[@bugsytv6852]

I think also the feminine and greek masculine lingo had died out during the time of Jesus do either way, he could not have said pebble.

[@anselmoramirez3838]

I mean in spanish rock is PIEDRA

[@shihyuchu6753]

9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

[@brentpadgett4253]

Good teaching. This verse has been mistranslated, and it is good to go back to the original languages

[@jvlp2046]

Catholic FIRST... According to the Bible, "the FIRST (Catholic) will be the Last, and the LAST (Christians) will be the FIRST" in the kingdom of God. (Matt. 19:30 & 20:16 /paraphrase)... Amen

[@mchristr]

In 1 Samuel 8, the theocratic kingdom of Israel lacked a central figurehead and so began to envy the neighboring peoples. Consequently the nation requested a king...and got Saul. God assured Samuel that the people weren't rejecting him but the very leadership of the LORD.

[@BaqashBlogs]

I think I understand where you are going with this. Are you suggesting that the Catholic persuasion has done something similar and has appointed a man as their king instead of God?

[@ninomary610]

Amen

[@georgepierson4920]

hello

[@Super-chad]

Hmmm... A very critical question. I'd like to know though, how does the Church interpret 'whosoever hear you, hear me; whosoever despiseth you, despiseth me'. How does that give the Church authority to recognize that it is empowered to influence change in Christianity in God's name?

[@zacharynelson5731]

Unlike Protestant churches; the Catholic Church hadn’t altered the deposit of faith and morals established by Christ at any point in the past 2,000 years

[@frederickanderson1860]

Ifyou attack the Roman church regards this issue. They cast the first stone he without sin, so they cast that first stone that Peter is the true Rock. 56 versesold testament rwgarfds who isour true Rock of salvation Godd himself.

[@frederickanderson1860]

King David in Pdalm 62 who is king David Rock not a man God himself.

[@zacharynelson5731]

Not an argument.

[@NICHOpamei]

👍

[@gavasiarobinssson5108]

Just from Sola Scriptura!

[@alexf.3699]

Jesus also gave the keys to the rest of the disciples, just 2 chapters later in Matthew 18:18 Giving them the authority to bind and loose. Why are you Catholics so prideful in 1 man?

[@alfonstabz9741]

the only argument that protestant can use is Greek grammar.!

[@louissolana5099]

I hear Protestants say that “this rock” isn’t Peter himself, but rather the understanding Peter had that Jesus was the Messiah/Son of God. They claim that the foundation of the Church wasn’t Peter, but is rather the concept of Christ being the Messiah as Peter understood it.

[@johnyang1420]

They are wrong!!!

[@tongakhan230]

Jesus was the Rock on which the Christian Congregation was built. Ephesians 5:23 because a husband is head of his wife just as THE CHRIST IS HEAD OF THE CONGREGATION, he being a savior of this body. The pope usurped Jesus from this position and declared himself as head.

[@starcityoldy]

So are there two Rocks?

[@davidblyth5495]

There are many analogies using rocks, each in a differing context

[@jvlp2046]

We, the Christians have no argument nor debate that Peter was the Rock Foundation (Corner Stone) of the Roman Catholic Church, and they are entitled to claim that 100%... but we, the Christians believe in Matthew 7:24-27(paraphrased) "The Wise Man (God) build His House (Church of God) upon the Rock (Christ Jesus)"... and not upon the Rock called by the name Peter... Amen.

[@davidblyth5495]

By which authority do you claim to speak on behalf of Christians? It was the Catholic Church which compiled the books and defined the canon of the NT or you'd not have it to read. So if you accept the validity of the NT, you're accepting the authority of Pope Damasus who declared the NT books into the canon of the Bible

[@tongakhan230]

@@davidblyth5495 : Just something to help. God even uses his enemies to get his will accomplished. The RCC tried to destroy the Bible. Even tried to stop it being translated into languages that the common man could read. Anyone trying to translate the Bible was burned. A far cry from any Christian behaviour. (Check out William Tyndale. Use Wikipedia).

[@davidblyth5495]

@@tongakhan230 it was the Catholic Church which wrote and compiled the NT. She also translated Scripture into the common languages used eg Arabic, Latin, etc. The first Bible in English was the Douay-Rheims version. There were many attempts to make erroneous translations to suit heresies. Tynedale was a victim of Henry VIII not the Church Don't use Wiki!

[@jvlp2046]

@@davidblyth5495 The same Authority given by Christ Jesus to His Apostles/Disciples/Early Christian and to those who "FAITHFULLY" followed/obeyed God's Commandments and teachings written in the Holy Scripture... not with Catholic Pope's doctrines and verbal Traditions that were not written...

[@RGTomoenage11]

BLAH, Protestants read stuff that’s not there. If Jesus meant Petros than Paul would call him Petro. But that’s not the case because Paul called him CEPHAS. This is how the king James writes it: 1 Corinthians 1:12 “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:12‬ ‭KJV‬‬ There is no petro, there. Paul himself called him cephas.

[@mx_moi1964]

Cephas is rock in Aramaic! Petros and Cephas means the same thing in two different languages

[@garystanfield2274]

The birth given name was Immanuel. Immanuel is who Yahhweh the Father who is Spirit put himself into fully. Thus, Immanuel became Yahweh the Father in the Flesh, Yahweh Messiah. That is why he told Phillip that when you have seen me you have seen the Father. This study should prove that Peter was not the Rock. Zechariah 3:9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith Yahweh of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. Revelation 5:6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of Yahweh sent out into all the earth. A Stone is smaller than a rock. The stone used to make your countertops was cut from rock. Difference Between Rock and Stone 42. Immanuel saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone / Rock which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is Yahweh's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Matthew 16:13-18 13 When Immanuel came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Yahweh, the Son of the living Yahweh. 17 And Immanuel answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Rock (speaking of himself) I will build my House; and the gates of Gehinnom shall not prevail against it. 44. And whosoever shall fall on this stone / Rock shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Isaiah 28:16 16 So this is what Yahweh says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; the one who believes will never be shaken. Romans 9:33 as it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame." Ephesians 2:20 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Yahweh Messiah himself being the chief corner stone / Rock; 1 Peter 2:7 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone / Rock which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, Psalms 18:2, 36, 46 2 Yahweh is my Rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my Mighty One, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. 31 For who is Almighty except Yahweh? or who is a Rock except our Mighty One? 46 Yahweh liveth; and blessed be my Rock; and let Yahweh of my salvation be exalted. Psalm 19:14 14. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O YAHWEH, my ROCK and my Redeemer. Psalm 62 1 My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from him. He alone is my Rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Yahweh Messiah Himself being the chief corner STONE; Now you can see why Yahweh is the Messiah's name. REVELATION 4:5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of YAHWEH. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter as first Pope.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter was married. Matthew 8:14 And when Immanuel was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. Luke 4:38 38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. Peter refused worship, Acts 10:25-26; 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Religiously speaking, call no man your Father, Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Tradition is outside of Scriptures, which Catholics use to fall back on when they cannot explain something, Mark 7:13 Making the word of Yahweh of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Peter was sent to the Jews, never went to Rome, he went to Babylon. Pauuuuuuul was sent to the Gentiles, he went to Rome.

[@samwisegamgee8318]

As a Protestant, I’ve never doubted that Jesus was telling Peter he was the rock in which the church would be built. However, I do not understand how, as the first Pope, Peter could start a trend of the Pope being inerrant??

[@alexkoval1566]

@Matt Blaise Exactly and being guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus Christ. It's like playing basketball without a referee. Pretty soon, you'll have all the basketball players interpret the rules differently and have chaos among themselves i.e. tens of thousands different Protestant denominations and some Catholic sects too.

[@Cato229]

This can be seen in Jesus' promise that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. This is despite the fact that Peter is given the keys to bind and loose. If Peter's dogmatic declarations were not infallible, then he could have misled the Church. We also see it in other places such as Luke 22:31-32 "31 “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded[e] to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." But, more basically - Jesus says we can trust Peter. If Peter then says we can trust Peter, we can trust him if we could trust Jesus. If Peter fouled up by "inventing" Papal Infallibility, then Jesus fouled up by making Peter Pope.

[@johnm.speight7983]

Sam - Jesus said to Peter, " Whoever hears You HEARS ME " If that's true then the Pope is Infallible thru Jesus Himself. my opinion PEACE

[@samwisegamgee8318]

@@johnm.speight7983 How'd you explain the bad Popes that had cardinals tortured (Urban VI) had mistresses (John XII) sold the papacy to the highest bidder (Benedict IX) and the list goes on? Every single Pope infalliable? Or just the good ones?

[@johnm.speight7983]

@@samwisegamgee8318 - my understanding is - When the Pope speaks Infallible ( by document ) - It will be made Very, Very, Clear that he is doing so and that is protected from error. On every day social issues He is not infallible. The Pope speaking infallible is seldom done Sam and Yes The Church says Good Pope or bad Pope it is Infallible. Peace ps. bad Presidents don't make the US of America bad - but enough bad Presidents and away goes US of A - Thankfully Jesus said he will be with The Church till the end of time.

[@DavidSantos-xl4wm]

On this rock(kefa,or Petra 'feminine'=God's bride, the true believers)...I will build my (corporate) world natural church... Gates of hell will not prevail= the true believers will not be affected,when Satan is loosed and the man of sin is in the temple. They have fled to the mountains (God's kingdom) within themselves. The keys are the gospel whereby our salvation in opened to God's elect,or bound up to the unchosen. Only God's elect will understand the true Bible, by God's divine dynamics of the Holy spirit.

[@jvlp2046]

Catholics have the right to say that Peter is the Rock Foundation/Corner Stone of the Roman Catholic Church, 100% correct... but definitely NOT the Rock (Corner Stone) for which the Church of God was established (built upon) by/thru Christ Jesus, around 2000 years ago (1st Cent. A.D.)... Amen

[@davidblyth5495]

No such thing as a "Roman" Catholic Church. Nowhere does Scripture or the Church claim that Simon was the "cornerstone"! All it means that SImon bar Jonah has authority delegated to him as was King David's prime minister.

[@tongakhan230]

That is correct! The pope usurped Jesus' role as head of the Christian Congregation (aka the Church). 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the APOSTASY COMES FIRST and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands IN OPPOSITION and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that HE SITS DOWN IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD, publicly showing himself to be a god.

[@davidblyth5495]

@@tongakhan230 It is Church teaching that the Head of the Church is the Christ. It was the Christ who gave Simon Peter the keys to the kingdom in the same way that King David the keys to his kingdom when he went away. You offer a Scripture verse with your fallible interpretation. Please offer evidence of what you claimed.

[@davidblyth5495]

@@tongakhan230 false - already discussed

[@jvlp2046]

@@davidblyth5495 While Apostle Peter (Simon bar-jonah) and the other Disciples were still alive during the early 7 Church (1st Cent. A.d.)... do the early Christians "addressed/called" apostle Peter as Pope/Father/Papa Peter?... Does Apostle Peter know that he is the First Pope as claimed by the Roman Catholic Church... Do the early Christians, kneel down before Apostle Peter and kiss his hands just like what the Roman Catholic Pope allowed the Catholics to do shown on TV and other social media platforms? Had the Roman Catholic Pope/s murdered or connivance in murdering thousand including women and children?...

[@mack6429]

Let's look to scripture for the answer.. Psalms 18:31 "for who is God except the Lord and who is a Rock except our God".

[@Cato229]

Except no early Christians ever read that to be a rejection of Peter being the rock. They did take the passages mentioned in the video as meaning Peter was the first Vicar of Christ. Imagine if an atheist came along and said, "The Bible says, 'there is no God.' in Psalms 14:1." That would be dumb. You can't just take a small part out of the Bible, ignore its context, and determine it means what you hoped it would mean. To understand the Bible, you must understand the Church. Jesus never made you an authoritative teacher. That may hurt, but you don't honor him by pretending he did. All early Christians understood the Apostles were the head of Jesus' Church with Peter being the first among them. This isn't just a Catholic claim; it is the history of Christianity. You can pick up the book of the Christians (or part of it) and make all kinds of declarations, but it isn't your religion. It is Jesus' religion and he actually said and did things. The passages actually mean things. You may wish you had an ancient book that predicted Jesus and said Peter wasn't the Rock, but you don't. You may wish you had an ancient book that said you could read it and change it however you saw fit, but you don't. You have a book that documents Jesus Christ setting up an Apostolic Church. In it, he makes clear who is in change while he's gone and how they set the rules. How do we know this is what it means? Because we have the entire history of Christianity. We can look and see what the Church Fathers had to say about it and we see that everyone understood this Church held authority to teach people about Jesus religion. Now, you can ignore the book and the rules. You can pretend they say the opposite of what they do. But you can't change history by ignoring it and you can't claim Jesus' religion by perverting it.

[@mack6429]

@@Cato229 actually peter was called stone, "petros in the original Greek text means stone or small rock.. Jesus is the rock or bolder, large Rock. Rock in the original Greek text means boulder.. your are peter (petros) small stone. And on this Rock (Jesus) large bolder .. Jesus is the foundation of the Church, He is the Cornerstone not Peter.... 1 Corinthians 3:11 "for no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ". Only Jesus is the Rock in scripture, many times we find God refered to as a Rock or corner stone. No where in scripture do we find peter claiming authority over any of the other apostles... As a matter of fact we see Paul rebuke Peter in Galatians 2:11-13. Interesting how peter who according to you, was infallible when speaking in matters of faith but yet rebuked by a lower ranking fallible man for speaking fallibly... so how can that happen if Peter was a infallible pope ? All believers are small stones and part of the large Rock .. 1 Peter 2:4-5 "come to Him as a living stone, rejected indeed by man, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" ... We also see this same concept in how the True Church is structured . 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. Believers make up the body and Christ is the head. All believers are small pieces of stone that are part of the large Rock... Your not seeing any of this because your religious system doesn't allow you to see it.... Also exactly where in scripture does it say believers are NOT to speak the gospel message ??? It seems very clear that all believers are to minister to each other and build His Church. What do you say to someone when they ask you what the message of the Bible is ?? You say I can't tell you go sit in my church?? What exactly would you say if someone asked you what the saving message of the gospel is ?? How would you answer that question ??

[@Cato229]

@@mack6429 First of all, petros does not mean small rock. Second of all, it was clear how the original Christians understood what Jesus was saying. They did not think he was referring to himself. Jesus is the cornerstone. I know that is true because this is what early Christians said and believed. They didn't take that as a counterpoint. Yes, Paul rightly rebuked Peter. I know that is true because this is what early Christians said and believed. They didn't take this as a counterpoint. You can continue to cite passages that all early Christians were familiar with. If you quote them to mean something the early Church rejected, you are rejecting Christianity. I never claimed Christians are not supposed to spread the message of Jesus, but that needs to be the message of Jesus and not some random person's new religion. That's why Jesus clearly set up an authoritative Church. Accept his Church or not, but you can't steal Jesus and use him like a puppet to pretend he supported your views. The fact that you reach to false facts like the "little stone" definition shows you are desperate enough to lie or too ignorant to learn the truth. It doesn't matter what you or I believe. Jesus was a historical person and this is a historical case. I'm not arguing about what some delusion in your head is whispering to you. I'm talking about the Church linked to Jesus through history.

[@mack6429]

@@Cato229 actually you are completely wrong about the original Greek text for peter ... But hey believe what you want...if want to place your faith in men and the traditions of men, that is your choice... the Bible is COMPLETE. You turn to fallible men all you like ... So many contradictions can be found between the RCC and what scripture actually teaches it's actually frightening... But if your convenienced that you can't read and understand scripture for yourself, you will never see scripture for what it's really saying. Just like the Pharisees. ...... Its actually really interesting, all religions claim to be the one true religion... Roman catholics, orthodox church even the Mormons claim to be the true christian church... Not to mention all the other religions .. talk to a museum about God... They will fight you left and right and insists to the end that your religion is false and there the truth.... Its absolutely insane... You say, yea but the RCC goes all the way back to Jesus, well so does the orthodox church say the same exact thing... Who's correct? I bet you say you are.. and they will say that your wrong. You want the true Church.. open your Bible and read the Words of God. You can say what you want about me and that bothers none.... If you want to place your faith in religion and your own works that's your decision.... I will place my faith in Christ on the cross and resurrected.... good day to you. Read your Bible. Pray for understanding and open eyes.

[@A.S2400]

@@mack6429 did you even watch the video? The Bible is a catholic book.

[@hotwings80]

For anyone confused on this topic. Read the patristic sources.

[@barbratopete6458]

Why do they say mary had children besides jesus were can i find to explain she did not

[@zxcasdqwe12]

Protestants reject purgatory or Pope, because there is no specific word. So, do the same thing. Ask them, where in Bible says "Mary had more children"?, or verse that says "Mary and Her children". ? There are no such a verses. Brothers in Bible are His cousins. Be unyielding. Let them play by their own game Good luck.

[@Cato229]

The Bible never says Mary has any other children, except spiritual children like Peter. Protestants that claim Mary had other children think they get this from the mention that Jesus had brothers. However, the word for "brother" was used in many senses, similar to how it is in English today. A brother could mean a blood-brother, like the Protestants would like it to mean. It could mean cousin or even kinsman. It could mean a coreligionist. These are all uses that occur in the Bible. So, why to Catholics claim Mary didn't have any other children? Because that's what the early Church believed, according to the dogma of her perpetual virginity. It would be odd for a Church that honors Mary so highly to suddenly lose track of her other children. But why do Protestants claim Mary did have other children? Because they tend to read the Bible in English, divorced from history, and get excited whenever they think they read something the Church missed. Just look at the original words translated as brother and look for how the Bible uses that word in other places. It sometimes means blood-brother just like "fruit" sometimes means "oranges." Just because a word CAN be translated one way, doesn't mean that's how it should be translated. To understand how it should be translated, we look to context, lexicons, and history. Those all show we have zero reasons to affirm Mary had other children.

[@johnm.speight7983]

the Bible does say Mary had a sister named Mary ? ? ? Two Marys in one family ? ? ?

[@MAP2023]

Protestants say Jesus is the rock, they are right Jesus is the rock THE BUILDERS AKA JEWS DESPISED. BUT in this verse Jesus himself calls himself the BUILDER and Peter aka THE ROCK AKA KEFA WAS THE ROCK OF HIS CHURCH. Protestants need to read the whole chapter and verses.

[@joycegreer9391]

RCC needs to read all of scripture and in context instead of the cherry picking that they always do. The apostles, the early believers, the first churches were Jews. The gospel was first to the Jews. Jesus came for Israel. RCC persecuted Jews. Jesus is all, the rock, the builder, ALL.

[@rbnmnt3341]

The bible objects to peter being the rock. All the church has is "upon THIS rock?" Please explain these scriptures for me. 1 Corinthians 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus." So I think we've established that the church can not lay any foundation, namely peter as the foundation. Now, 1 Corinthians 10:4b, " For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and THAT Rock WAS CHRIST." Not good enough for you? Is THIS rock still peter? How about a couple scriptures in the Psalms. One that says "HE is the rock of my salvation?" How about "HE is my Rock and my fortress?" Who is the HE here? Is peter also our savior too? 1 Samuel 2:2, "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there ANY ROCK like our God." So keeping in mind that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT I ask you this. Why would God, being omniscient , call peter the rock if he had already said there is not any other rock? Did God forget what he said in the OT? Ok, a couple more. Psalms 61:2, "when my heart is overwhelmed lead me to the Rock that is higher than I." Psalms 51:1b, "look to THE ROCK from which ye are hewn." Isaiah 44:8, "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago? You are my witnesses -is there any other God? No! There is NO OTHER ROCK -NOT ONE!" Last question. Who is the "Rock of Ages?" And what does "For the LORD GOD is an everlasting Rock" mean? Please, please, please respond.

[@purifying-my-heart]

Easy question--look at your creed; it does NOT mention Peter. Hence both are WRONG, for once Protestant are more correct; Jesus is referring to Peter's confession about His Identify, this is the rock--confession Jesus as Lord, Kirios.

[@georgepierson4920]

Which creed?

[@danny-yy9fv]

Things shouldn't be so complicated, remember the saying...the devil is in the details? You guys are making way too much of this. The question Jesus asked his disciples was about himself, not Peter. Was Peter the only one the Father revealed this to? In the gospel of John Ch. 11 verse 27 Martha also knew and confessed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God which should come into the world. So Martha like Peter, is part of the body (or structure) if ya like, that is built on the foundation (or rock) which is Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone, which was laid before the foundation of the world. And I understand that Catholics cannot agree to this because it would be the end of Catholicism. so yeah, I get it... but strongly disagree.

[@videonmode8649]

Yeah, you're the random youtuber that has it all figured out.

[@danny-yy9fv]

@@videonmode8649 I strongly disagree with that too...

[@Kitiwake]

What's the point in forming a church and then leaving it? It's nonsense. Why not just leave a book?

[@A.S2400]

🔥🔥🔥

[@DaVinci3333]

Jesus never left the Church unattended. Matter fact he is present everyday in the Sacrement of Communion. Hence, One Faith, One Baptism with Apostolic ORDAINED Succession guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus declared.

[@belleepoque3631]

Why is there a image of a camera on the intro slide weird

[@rubenmontiel5000]

How do you answer that?. I will gladly tell you. First, let me make it clear. Peter, IS NOT THE ROCK! Here is why. There was no prophecy about Peter in the Old Testament, right? So, I have a couple of scriptures from the Old Testament for you. I would like for you or any catholic to tell me if they are talking about Peter. The first is 1 Samuel 2:2, "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there ANY Rock like our God." Are we talking about Peter here? Ok, let's go to Isaiah 44:8. It reads as follows, " Do not tremble, don't be afraid. Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago? You are my witnesses- is there any other God? No! THERE IS NO OTHER ROCK - NOT ONE." Again, was Peter around in the Old Testament? So the ROCK in Matthew can not possibly be Peter. Now, the church also claims Peter is the foundation of the church. So here is the biblical response to that. this one is in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 3:11, " For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Scripture is abundantly clear who the ROCK is. We are to believe that Jesus was talking about Peter when he said "upon THIS rock?" So the OT says there is no other God and no other ROCK. Either God is a liar or Rome is the liar. You decide, God or man.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

On this Rock being Peter and not either the confession or Christ is actually the minority view among the Fathers!

[@jzak5723]

Why couldn't Peter be both? What you say out of your mouth is coming from you, is it not?

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@jzak5723 it's not coming from me I'm just following the facts.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@jzak5723 most Roman Catholics are not aware of the historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Peter Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5] He points out the 5 interpretations of Matt. 16:18, to which Fathers of antiquity held: All Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers-. Origen who is a common source of patristic exegetical tradition: states “‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew). All the apostles, 8 Fathers (Cyprian et al). Christ as the Rock, 16 Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (“rock” as Christ), He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4. Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers. The Rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia [448]; Cyril of Alexandria; Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, and Augustine again. Note, that Augustine (later in life) Augustine stated: Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Retractations).[7] Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. Kendrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”[8]

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@jzak5723 Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871). [6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity). [7] Augustine wrote The Retractations late in his life to correct points expressed in his own writings. Here, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ [8] Speech of Archbishop Kenrick, 109, An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.

[@jzak5723]

@@Adam-ue2ig I didn't mean YOU in particular, but referring to Peter.

[@timothyfreeman97]

*protestant tears*

[@johnyang1420]

Protestant tears? I made a protein shake out of rhat!

[@patrickoconnor9700]

That's not a good mindset to have about Christian brothers and sisters.

[@JMD-37]

It contradicts Numbers 11.

[@nickhanley5407]

You say bad exegesis, but we don’t base theology on one verse. Or theology on things that aren’t even in the Bible!

[@Cato229]

The Canon of the Bible isn't in the Bible. Do you reject that as well?

[@douglasmcnay644]

The title of "rock" has only ever been utilized throughout the Old and New Testament to describe God, never anyone else. So why would Jesus suddenly break that rule and call a fallible, mortal, sinful man a title reserved for God alone? Even Peter referred to Christ as the stumbling block and the cornerstone, not himself.

[@davidblyth5495]

Jesus changed many things However He delegated Simon bar Jonah into the office analogous to that of King David's prime minister with the same authority

[@ifilmalways7122]

@@davidblyth5495 Yes but many protestants skip right over Isaiah 22. If they ever admitted the real truth the protestant movement would be decimated on many levels...

[@davidblyth5495]

@@ifilmalways7122 indeed! When relying one own interpretation of Scripture, the tendency is to dismiss or ignore verses, chapters or even books that differ from that personal interpretation