Who is the Rock? (Matt

Matt 16:18 is the famous passage that says: "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 question that will be discussed in this dialogue is who the rock is referring to. Does it refer to Peter? To Jesus? To someone/something else?
Dr. Nemes' KZbin channel: / drstevennemes
Jimmy Akin's channel: / jimmyakin
This video's sponsor: christcenteredcapital.com/
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Catholicism #CapturingChristianity #JimmyAkin

[@samruggiero1778]

The whole Greek thing is a red herring to gaslight us. So Jesus changed Simons name for no reason? Gave Peter the keys for no reason? Gave him authority to bind and loose for no reason? Why even have this discourse with Peter at all? If Peter isn't being ordained with the role of looking after Christs sheep. Jimmy was coherent and comprehensive with his argument, which made perfect sense and matched what we could see with a common sense reading of the scripture passage.

[@peter_hobbs]

Yep, so true

[@samruggiero1778]

@YAJUN YUAN Rearranging the text now 😂🤣

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@@samruggiero1778 he's an Adventist. They live in a deranged fantasy world.

[@lonelyberg1808]

That's why I always thought

[@samruggiero1778]

@JD Apologetics You do realise he ONLY gave the keys to Peter.

[@simonsonsco.4982]

Jimmy’s argument is rock solid.

[@mareeyo1]

I get it 😏

[@angelbrother1238]

This is why he’s one of my top 2 favorite catholic apologists . Also coming at it from originally the Protestant side helps him to see both sides of the argument in a clear way . Now dr Steven said that the fathers had a wide variety of opinions on this passage and that may be true but there are more fathers that interpreted Peter as the rock then Peter not being the rock .

[@elliott2389]

Just got the pun after the 10th time I read your comment 😅

[@vtac7627]

I see what you did there!

[@Im40ImAMan]

Jimmy Akin loses me when he says the Words of Jesus are too far separated because they appear in different gospels. I felt he is way to into defending his postion and committed to it causing him to use bad logic as he's assuming his is the correct interpretation and going at it from that perspective.

[@shawnmathew6078]

Wow! I’m actually really impressed and convinced by Jimmy’s argument here 👍

[@SpotterVideo]

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 1Co_10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 1Pe 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. 1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

[@mcgragor1]

@@SpotterVideo Love it, even Peter knew who the Rock was! Great scriptures, 1st Cor 10:4 from Paul nails it!

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@mcgragor1 Bizzare translation and selection.

[@mcgragor1]

@@brendansheehan6180 Why? Paul the key apostle to the gentiles (that's us), clearly called Jesus the Rock. It's not ambiguous, its not debatable. 1Cor-10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. It doesn't mean Jesus didn't refer to Peter as a rock, Peter did a great job, so did James, Paul, John, etc... But all of them pointed us to Jesus, the TRUE Rock, our salvation, our hope.

[@mcgragor1]

@@tony1685 Every day is the Lord's day, Christ is my Sabbath. We're not under law but grace, liberty not to walk in sin, but to love the Lord and walk in love toward others, He taking the law to Himself, fulfilling it for us. Amen, His yoke is easy, His burden is light, if it seems heavy to you, you got something wrong. God-bless

[@dsonyay]

I stupidly left the Catholic Church to go to “real Christianity “ and years later coming back to Catholicism after realizing the Catholic Church is the only truly apostolic Church .. with a clear line of succession back to Peter. I will never stray again. People like Hahn, Akin , and Ray were instrumental in my journey home. The good Dr was simply out-schooled here. How he doesn’t see he’s simply wrong baffles me.

[@CroElectroStile]

wow that Jimmies structure argument is amazing

[@Joker22593]

@YAJUN YUAN We know what you think it means. Do you know what it really means?

[@CroElectroStile]

@YAJUN YUAN There are only two name changes in the NW, one is Mary - Full of Grace and another is Peter=Cephas=rock, one is Matriarch one is Patriarch, So it make more sense that Peter is being talked about in that passage as the rock

[@nathangraham2189]

@YAJUN YUAN I’m sorry, but this “interpretation” (its so badly mangling and twisting the text that it’s hard to even call it that) is utterly irrational. You’re making Jesus sound like a total weirdo, as Akin so expertly explained. You have Jesus as essentially saying “blessed are you Simon, I commend you highly!” Then immediately saying “You’re a tiny insignificant pebble, who cares about you?” and then finishing this schizophrenic sounding address with a third, to you now wholly unrelated tangent: “but on myself and this truth about me I will build my Church.” The reading is so strained as to become nonsensical. This ought to be a clue that it’s incorrect.

[@nathangraham2189]

@YAJUN YUAN It’s tangential to what, and WHO, Jesus is actually talking about here: PETER. Your “interpretation” requires you to chop up the entire passage into weird chunks and move things around. It does not make any sense, I’m sorry. The Catholic reading of this passage IS, without question, the obvious and most honest and straightforward reading of it. I don’t like doing mental gymnastics to explain away the plain meaning of a text. Your, and Nemes’, wholesale reconstruction of the passage wouldn’t be accepted by either of you either were it not for your a priori presuppositional commitments. Pax Christi.

[@nathangraham2189]

@YAJUN YUAN Yep, I know the passage, “Get behind me Satan”. So what? If your point is that St. Peter was a flawed man with failings, we all agree, that doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit couldn’t use that flawed man and mold him into the Rock. We hold a treasure in earthen vessels.

[@samruggiero1778]

Jimmy had the humility and intellectual honesty to change his view and realised the Catholics were right when he completed his very deep and expansive study of this passage.

[@gideondavid30]

Not sure how it involves being humble or honest. He looked at the data and made a decision for himself. Unless you can explain his testimony in detail to give context. I'm sure there are catholics who read the bible and changed their minds and converted to protestantism as well.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@gideondavid30 People make mistakes, sure.

[@gideondavid30]

@@brendansheehan6180 Right. That is why some juries are hung. 12 people can be presented with the same facts and come to different conclusions. God only knows the motives of each person in coming to their conclusions.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@gideondavid30 Yah, luckily God didn't give us some unclear ministry. He gave us a path to salvation. And thats why he set into place the foundation of his visable church, Peter, to pass on the faith, and to serve as the seat of unity.

[@gideondavid30]

@@brendansheehan6180 I understand you believe that and that is great. I was just responding to your initial post.

[@frank2166]

Jimmy thank you so much! I'm a Catholic that came back home, after I was converted to an evangelical

[@cactoidjim1477]

I never realized how odd it is to believe that an individual can be saved - be protected from Hell - by Grace alone, but the Church cannot simultaneously be protected from error by the very same Grace of God.

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

Bruh, the question is not *can* but *is*. Could God have protected Adam and Eve from original sin? Yes, but did he? No. Yet we are protected from hell by grace alone right? Could God have prevented any scribes from any textual error whatsoever by the grace of God? Yeah, but were they? no.

[@Draezeth]

I believe God can. But I think it takes a huge amount of eisegesis to arrive at the Catholic view of how it happens.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@YAJUN YUAN except Christ never taught "once saved always saved", but he did guarantee that the won't lose its way. It's also impossible for the Church to lose its way because it was established by Christ himself. False equivalence and a terrible argument. Try again.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@@Draezeth it takes a literal interpretation of Christ's words. Try again.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@YAJUN YUAN Your arguments are laughably terrible. Sit down bud, you're embarrassing yourself.

[@quickrat3348]

The protestant argument is: "Hey Simon, for now on, your name is Rock, but hold on, nobody cares, because I am the Rock!" Makes no sense at all

[@eskercurve]

I like pointing to Luke's Gospel and how Jesus said that Simon Peter should defend and strengthen the other disciples, even though He knew Peter would deny him three times. Proof that to be pope doesn't mean you are perfect. Proof that Jesus always held Peter in special regard. And the council of Jerusalem in Acts proof that Peter is the leader. And you don't make a building without a cornerstone or foundation, and you don't stop at it either.

[@gordanadrmic752]

What reason for The Council of Jerusalem showed was that in the earliest line of the Chrisian's leaders who were in the Upper Room on the Penthecost many things didn't be in the right spirit.

[@MasterKeyMagic]

@@gordanadrmic752...what?

[@OstKatholik]

Jimmy Akin, you did a great job. Keep up your good work.

[@Mkvine]

@YAJUN YUAN I’m sorry but I can’t find this translation anywhere? What Bible version is this? Are you quoting the Jehovas Witness Bible?

[@Mkvine]

@YAJUN YUAN But Dr. Nemes is not a translator…

[@Mkvine]

@YAJUN YUAN Taking one or two classes doesn’t make you a qualified translator of the Bible.

[@JoyTheDigitalKnight]

Nice and very respectable discussion 👌 Jimmy's argument is very solid. I was born Christian (Lutheran) and ended up in Catholic Church after countless of hours learning history, reading ECF writings, Bible, CCC and praying. Catholic Church is indeed The Historical Church that founded by Jesus Christ. And one thing I must say, one needs to read Bible in the light of Catholic Teaching, because they are the one who made the Bible. It was made to accommodate and confirms the Holly Traditions that they have kept and guard since 2000 years ago. So you can't pull out the Bible and read it on it's own.

[@rjay5603]

How do you say that Roman Catholics created the Bible?

[@t.d6379]

​@@rjay5603because the early church was catholic. And the Church canonised the Holy Bible via Holy Tradition historical facts.

[@rjay5603]

@@t.d6379 I see you have a love affair with begging the question.

[@rjay5603]

@@t.d6379 I see you have a love affair with begging the question.

[@valeriereneeharper]

They didn’t make the Bible lol canonizing is not the same as creating

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Jimmy Akin is a treasure!! 🙏🏽

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Dr. Steven says the Apostle Matthew always places Peter in a negative light, yet, the Apostle Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST, ( PROTOS, CHIEF, LEADER, Matthew 10:1,2), when naming the Apostles! Jesus Christ prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Jesus renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock. Jimmy did an incredible job confirming the actual context of Matthew 16. Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church, ( "Jesus, Peter and the keys", Hess, Butler). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@SolusChristus12]

does the Bible say Jesus is the rock? can there be another rock apart from Christ?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@SolusChristus12 Yes, as the Bible ALSO states Abraham is the rock in the Psalms and Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@SolusChristus12]

@@matthewbroderick6287 it is the confession of peter that Jesus is referring to, in the next verses Jesus calls Peter Satan and the rest of the disciples did not treat Peter specially, infact they talked about who is greater when Jesus ate with them!

[@Justas399]

Where in Peter's writings does he claim to be the rock on which the church is built? Where do the apostles acknowledge him as such in their writings?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@Justas399 Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock! The Apostle Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST, ( PROTOS, CHIEF, LEADER, Matthew 10:1,2). Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peter calls Himself a servant, just as Jesus called himself a servant! Paul calls Simon, Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@scotthauck9898]

Our Lord spoke Aramaic. Only one word for rock in Aramaic. Cepha. Peter is the Rock and first pope. Akin makes this point in the first 5 min of speaking

[@johnsix.51-69]

John 1:42. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand either.

[@scotthauck9898]

I’ll trust our Lords actual words in the actual language He spoke. The Aramaic translation of the NT confirms this. Which is dated to 12 years after Calvary btw.

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUN YUAN yes, the distinction between the apt word Petra (the common word for massive stone) and Petros (the uncommon word for another stone) Matthew translates it the way he does for a good reason. The only reason he didn't say you are Petra and on this Petra I will build my church is because we don't call males Petra. The only reason he didn't translate it you are Petros and on this Petros I will build my church is because the image *petros generates, is not the image of a stone you want to *build upon* So the only way to keep the big stone image and not make Peter a girl was to change the gender of the female to the male.

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUN YUAN it just wasn't the word Matthew wanted to use when translating. He wanted to use Petra for the foundation of the church. But he wouldn't dare to call Peter, Petra. That would be absurd. Not as a foundation of the church but as a personal Greek name. Luckily his name was in Aramaic as well and that is why he is called Kephas.

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUN YUAN St Augustine truly is a treasure. Glad you agree with him. But perhaps you don't know everything he said about Peter and Peter's See He [Christ] wanted to make Peter- to whom He commended His sheep as to another self- one with Himself, so that He should commend the sheep to him in such a way that one would be the Head and the other bear the image of the body, that is, the Church. [Sermon 46, 30. PL 38: 287] St Augustine to Pope Boniface I had heard, by your incomparable reputation, and by frequent and utterly reliable messengers, blessed and venerable pope Boniface, how full of God’s grace you are... For neither do you disdain, you whose thoughts are not lifted up, howbeit that you preside more loftily, to be the friend of the lowly, and make a return for love bestowed upon you... I have made bold to write something to Your Beatitude about those matters which now excite all our episcopal care... to vigilance on behalf of the Lord’s flock... pastoral vigilance is common to all of us who exercise the episcopal office, although you are pre-eminent, on a loftier summit... I have decided, therefore, to send these things to Your Holiness, not that you may learn anything, but so that you may examine them, and if perhaps you find anything disagreeable, correct it... [PL 44: 550- 51] St Augustine on Pelagians in Africa ...by the vigilance of episcopal councils, in the assistance of the Savior who defends his Church, [the Pelagians] have been condemned in the whole Christian world as well by two venerable bishops of the Apostolic See, *pope Innocent* and *pope Zosimus* ... we have taken care to have delivered... copies of recent letters from that See, both those addressed specifically to the Africans, and those that went out *universally to all the bishops* ... [Ep. 190. PL 33: 865] St Augustine humble before Pope Zosimus: “what I took from the prophets and apostles as my source, I offer for approval to to the judgment of Your Apostleship, so that if, perhaps, any error due to ignorance has slipped in... it may be *corrected by your decision* .” [De Peccato Orig., 23. PL 44: 397] Augustine on his faith The consent of peoples and nations holds me, her authority holds me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, augmented by charity and confirmed by antiquity. The *succession of bishops* holds me from the *very see of the apostle Peter* , to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, *entrusted his sheep to be fed* , down to the present episcopate... [PL 42: 175] I think that the part of the world in which our Lord willed to crown the first of His apostles with a most glorious martyrdom ought to be sufficient for you... If you had been willing to hear Blessed Innocent, who presides over that Church, you would have long since extricated your perilous youth from the nets of the Pelagians... with [these other Fathers] he sits also, although later in time, prior in rank. [Contra Iulianum I, 13. PL 44: 648] ...Already two councils have been *sent to the Apostolic See* [Rome] about this matter, from which *replies have come bac* k. *The case is over* ; would that the error finally end as well... [Sermon 131. PL 38: 729] St Augustine when fighting the Donatists. If the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be reckoned, how much more *securely and really beneficially* do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, bearing the *figure of the Church* , the Lord says, “Upon *this rock* I will build my Church.” [PL 33: 196. Ep. 53] St Augustine wrote a lovely hymn about this too: You know what the Catholic Church is, and what is cut off from the vine; if there are any cautious among you, let them come; let them find life in the root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine: grief it is when we see you thus cut off. Number the bishops from the very see of Peter, and in that order of the Fathers see who succeeded to whom. *That is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail* . [PL 43: 30] St Augustine: [Carthage] had a bishop of no mediocre authority, who could afford to take no heed of a conspiring multitude of enemies, since he saw that he was connected, by letters of communion, both to the Roman Church, in which *the principality of the apostolic chair was ever in force* , and to the other lands whence the Gospel came into Africa itself... [Ep. 43. PL 33: 163] St Augustine has a question for you. Shall we then hesitate to hide ourselves in the bosom of that Church which, by the confession of the human race itself, has obtained the summit of authority from the Apostolic See, through the succession of bishops, while heretics uselessly howled against her, condemned partly by the people’s judgment itself, partly also by the gravity of councils, and partly by the majesty of miracles? To refuse to grant her the primacy is either the utmost impiety, or headlong arrogance. [De. Util. Cred., 17. PL 42: 91] St Augustine sermon sometimes attributed to bishop of Carthage Quodvultdeus... Either way a lovely thought “You are not considered to hold the true faith of the Catholic [Church], who do not teach that the Roman faith is to be kept. For you seek, as far as in you lies, to subvert the Catholic foundations of the faith itself...” [PL Suppl. 3: 286-7]

[@tubinho79]

Greek: petra and Petros the masculine name Latin: petra and Petrus the masculine name Spanish: piedra and Pedro the masculine name Italian: pietra and Pietro the masculine name Portuguese: pedra and Pedro the masculine name French: pierre and Pierre the masculine name As we can see, that's where Peter comes from. I think this problem only exists in English and maybe in other Germanic languages where they don't know the meaning of the name Peter...but in Greek or in the Latin languages this problem does not exist, everyone knows that the name "Peter" literally means rock, so there's no confusion at all. And less confusion exists in Aramaic with Kefa.

[@tisaleha9207]

@YAJUN YUAN the problem is Jesus didn't speak to Peter using greek. he used aramaic. and in aramaic both "Rock" and "Peter" literally means the same word: "cepha". the name that Jesus gave to simon

[@blonde.angelk]

Piedra is femenine in spanish 😄

[@thomasthellamas9886]

Ironically your comment confused me

[@tubinho79]

@@thomasthellamas9886 What do you mean?

[@ModernLady]

English speakers don’t understand that words can have gender. And some names can have a masculine or a feminine version. That’s probably why I have never heard anyone besides English speakers use the Petra/petros-argument. The way they try to twist the meaning to fit their anti-Catholic narrative is funny to watch.

[@JeanRausis]

Every single time I watch a debate between a catholic and a protestant I'm more and more convinced that in fact catholics did the work in depth and protestants try to justify an a priori position. It's obvious here. Steven got schooled with kindness. No disrespect.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

👆. Exact Opposite for me. I wanted to be Catholic. I tried, but there’s NO spiritual peace inside me about this religion. None. CHRIST did not have Debates. Debates are not The Way. “Watch out no one deceives you. For many will come in my name claiming ‘I am the Christ’ and will deceive many.”

[@NathanSkifton]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Interestingly, you didn’t refute anything. You just said Catholicism didn’t make you feel at peace, whatever that means. If you want a fluffy, lovey dovey faith, then go to your local mega church or prosperity gospel church. However, I reject the notion that your personal and subjective spiritual peace should be the guiding principle. If something is true, follow it. Jimmy did a great job in showing why the Catholic interpretation is correct. Conclusion: follow it.

[@A-ARonYeager]

​@NathanSkifton I've seen this account (the one you replied to) on many other catholic channels and it's just someone who's hates catholics with no reason

[@vintagevmax2410]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc "For many will come in my name..." Thus the 30 Thousand plus Christian churches in the U.S.A.

[@t.d6379]

Jimmy is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! Thank you Jesus!

[@davidszaraz4605]

I think the distinction between "Petros" and "Petra" is overstated. To me the linguistic reason for the distinction between "Petros" and "Petra" is the most plausible. It seems that Petros is a name coined by Jesus himself that is derived from "Petra" but adjusted to a masculine form. Karlo Broussard has a great article on CA on this where he cites protestant scholars as well who have the same view: "Peter Receives His Name and His Gender"

[@ajafca7153]

I thought the same. In Spanish stone is piedra, but Peter's name is Pedro. Since piedra is feminine it seems fitting to change the noun to use a masculine form. To monolingual English speakers these things might be more cryptic.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes πέτρα (Pétra) is a normal word in Greek for stone or rock, ... so when he says "on this πέτρα" he means Peter is this rock, of course in a figurative sense as the foundation on which a house is built, but still the correct word for *rock* is "πέτρα (Pétra)" and not "Πέτρος - Pétros". He could not says on this "Πέτρος - Pétros" , because it would not describe the *rock* as it is commonly used in Greek, ... rather Πέτρος (Pétros) is a *name* which is derived from πέτρα (Pétra), that is from *rock* , but Πέτρος (Pétros) is not used regularly for *rock* . I don´t know if I explained this in a understandable way, but essentially Jesus could not use a *name* (Peter) to describe a *thing* (rock) , that is my point.

[@ajafca7153]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes And also why Jesus changed his name from Simon to Peter.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@@ajafca7153 Exactly ... I don´t get it why is this not understandable for some. You simply cannot use Pedro (name) to say ... "I will throw a Pedro at someone" ... that is nonsense. Pedro is a name derived from piedra, which is stone.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes can you give me an example when "Petros" is used for rock?

[@josephssewagudde8156]

Any judge here will analyse the statement and take the meaning emphasized by Jimmy Akin. The fact that his rival in the debate says he is not bound by the understanding and the interpretation of the church fathers just shows you that he subscribes to his own authority. This is the soul of protestantism

[@valeriereneeharper]

That’s a lie. Saying you aren’t bound by something doesn’t mean you don’t respect or consider those things, nor does it mean you are your own authority.

[@nicksteini]

The Protestant position seems to clearly start of from the foundation that the papacy is unbiblical, Peter hence is not the Rock, and then somehow try to interpret the passages in this light. Ask any not Christian to read this passage, they will obviously agree with the catholic understanding. If extreme mental gymnastics as such, are always permitted to understand the Word, it‘s very understandable that amongst Protestants you have some that even support homosexuality and abortion.

[@josephssewagudde8156]

Protestant style of reasoning is just the same way Muslims argue against Christ being the son of God.

[@PlantChrist]

@@josephssewagudde8156 no

[@masterchief8179]

*St Jerome (347 AD - 420 AD)* _”Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; _*_let the state of ROMAN majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the SUCCESSOR of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, THAT IS WITH THE CHAIR (“cathedra”) OF PETER. For this, I know, is the ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH is built (Matthew 16:18)! This is the house where ALONE the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten (Exodus 12:22). This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails_*_ (Genesis 7:23). But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, _*_I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here FOLLOW the Egyptian confessors WHO SHARE YOUR FAITH_*_ , and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist”_ (St Jerome, Letter 15 [to Pope St Damasus], par. 2).

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Gotta appeal to the 4th/5th century aye mate?🤔

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@Ttcopp12rt Seems like a better move than the 16th century.

[@MrPeach1]

@@Ttcopp12rt you appeal to the 4th century for your defense of the Trinity...

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@MrPeach1 Nope. I appeal to evidence which dates the 1st century - namely the New Testament - so please stop misrepresenting me.

[@MrPeach1]

@@Ttcopp12rt if it wasn't for the council of nicea you would be an arian right about now.

[@chrispompu1019]

Protestant here. Though I disagree with Jimmy's arguement he is the clear winner of the debate.

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA

[@nanagaga2001]

Apologist Steve Ray gives a good reason why the words petros and petra were used. Petra in Greek is a feminine noun. Matthew wouldn't have used a feminine noun to refer to Peter, he would have masculinized it to Petros. In Aramaic, the language Jesus undoubtedly spoke, the word would have been Kepha in both instances, as in "you are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my church".

[@nanagaga2001]

@YAJUN YUAN Petros is not a word in Greek. Matthew used it because "petra" is feminine and he didn't want to call Simon by a feminine word. Besides, Jesus wasn't speaking Greek, he was speaking Aramaic and the word would be the same in both uses.

[@nanagaga2001]

@YAJUN YUAN it's really irrelevant what was written in Greek since that was not the original language that was being spoken.

[@nanagaga2001]

@YAJUN YUAN As far as I can tell the word Petros didn't exist until Matthew wrote the gospel. If you look it up you only get references to proper nouns.

[@nanagaga2001]

@YAJUN YUAN Peter is not Simon's surname. Jesus said "I tell you, you are Peter". He gave Simon a new name, the same way Abraham and Jacob were given new names for their new commission.

[@nanagaga2001]

​@YAJUN YUAN Jesus couldn't have been any clearer. He said "I tell you, you are Peter". Peter was called Simon Peter a few times in the gospel because, as you mentioned before, it was a new name for his friends and they were simply identifying him for their readers. In the old testament Jacob was referred to Jacob and Israel at different times, sometimes in the same paragraph. In Acts and in his letters Peter was only referred to as Peter.

[@rosiegirl2485]

What a great discussion..I really enjoyed it! I personally think that Jimmy Akin had the most reasonable argument. I do realize that Jimmy can be wrong...though I trust his thorough study on his subject. He will look at it from every angle and then follow his outcome wherever it may lead...which gives me confidence in his answer. I don't have the schooling or the intellect that Jimmy has...so I rely on good sources...and to me, they don't get any better then Jimmy Akin! Thank you Cameron for hosting this! 🌷

[@pedrolizama4993]

Jimmy is a scriptural genius. He can dismantle anyone when it comes to scripture.

[@rjay5603]

Really?

[@gordanadrmic752]

The Scriptures are enough tricky for everyone of all branches of Christianity and it is up to levels of knowledge, understanding and experiencing.

[@arafathussain9790]

Jimmy the best ❤

[@ludivinabentadan1243]

Excellent, Jimmy interpretation makes sense.

[@michaelharrington6698]

One line rebuttals to Nemes 5 points: 1. Petra was the common word for rock, Greek grammar is strong even Jesus name had 3 forms in NT, Greek ear hears no significant difference 2. Great argument for the synthetic parallel that Akin mentioned but can't refute what the passage plainly teaches 3. The Gospel author plainly mentioned the distinction when context was not sufficient, Matthew does not. 4. Solo scriptura (minus Matthew 16), however if you read the NT, Peter clearly was primary among the apostles 5. Not sure what conquering Hades has to do with the keys to heaven so must be missing something

[@michaelharrington6698]

When pushed, the entirety of Nemes argument rested on Petra vs Petros.

[@shanesilverstein287]

tbh, he's not even interested in both Chiasmic Structures(even his own), because his mind is already set on the meaning Petros/Petra regardless, rather than letting the text itself tell who the Petra is. He's also assuming that Jesus was pointing to Peter(Petros) and then redirected to Himself(Petra). The text never says this. So by the flow itself it is only natural that there's no change in reference.

[@Draezeth]

I agree with most of this, just not point 4. I actually think that reading the NT reveals quite clearly that, while Peter was primary in the beginning, the rest of the time he was never more than one of the brothers. I do not see his primacy outside of the initial steps of preaching the gospel.

[@stevenokeefe3447]

Well done, Jimmy

[@arash402003]

Jimmy did a great job. Once gain, I find Dr. Nemes simply….chaotic…in his argumentation and thinking. I’ve watched his appearance on Gospel Simplicity more than once…he’s a very very odd thinker and orator.

[@guardedacumen]

LMAO!

[@jimmydavid1993]

Could not agree any less. Jimmy as usual very articulate, precise and persuasive

[@Mkvine]

@YAJUN YUAN Jimmy’s structure is more convincing

[@cactoidjim1477]

@YAJUN YUAN How is it that Abraham can be called "Father Abraham" when God is the true Father?

[@Mkvine]

@YAJUN YUAN Because he’s Jimmy Akin

[@kathyweiland4732]

If I was a Protestant right now I'd be going to RCIA immediately. Great job Jimmy

[@Maximus5798]

Lol 2022 and people don’t know who The Rock is?

[@etherealwave]

Yeah! I know it. It's Dwayne Johnson "The Rock"

[@johnyang1420]

Peter

[@antoniomckellar4806]

You nailed it Jimmy Akin- Good Job!!

[@DM-sj9xd]

It’s really not that complicated. Peter is the rock upon whom Jesus built his church. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock), how could Jesus have been more clear?

[@angelbrother1238]

This is what dr Steven clearly misses

[@dannymcmullan9375]

Jesus could have been more clear. He could have said, "upon you I will build my Church". But He didn't. He said " this rock" meaning himself. Just like when Jesus said, " destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up". Meaning himself not the temple. Not to mention that everywhere in the bible where it mentions the rock, it is referring to Christ. How could He be more clear?

[@t.d6379]

​@@dannymcmullan9375when God changes peoples names in history, its kind of a big deal.

[@johnyang1420]

@@dannymcmullan9375Why would Jesus give the keys to himself?

[@triconcert]

With all due respect Dr Nemes, when I heard your reasoning about the depiction of Simon through all his failings, I couldn't help but think that that is a supremely superficial reading of Scripture. As a student of Literature, one learns how to read between the lines for deeper psychological motivation and thinking. All of Simon Peter's failings actually go to show that he is asking Christ the profoundest questions about His teaching. He may blunder and fail but Christ's actual assessment of his interior strength demonstrates clearly why he was blessed with being the foundation of the Church. He is saying to Peter: "Move to the head of the class." More to it, after continual pruning Christ prayed for Peter that he would strengthen his brother apostles. Perhaps you could consider there is an interior gradual transformation in Peter that speaks to the healing power of Christ's ministry which is reflected in our own journey with Christ. I find it difficult to navigate all the pronoun changes you make with Christ's statement/blessings to Peter which would in fact be perspicaciously clear to a child. Interestingly, the evidence of two thousand years of history of the Catholic Church and the popes and Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it have already weighed the victory in the Church's favour. So Peter as the Rock is true.

[@GraeOne_]

Great as always. both have really good arguments.

[@jameshughes2911]

One of the best debates ive watched. Both Jimmy and Steve were prepared, imminently knowledgeable, and polite. Bravo... and likewise the comment section is filled with well informed and civil discourse. We need a lot more of this...❤

[@willire8811]

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee; Let the water and the blood, From thy wounded side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Save from wrath and make me pure. 2. Not the labors of my hands Can fill all thy law’s demands; Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears forever flow, All for sin could not atone; Thou must save, and thou alone. 3. While I draw this fleeting breath, When mine eyes shall close in death, When I rise to worlds unknown And behold thee on thy throne, Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in thee.

[@User_Happy35]

Love this song. The only Rock/ cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ!

[@BreRMatt240]

In order for Jimmy to respond to Dr. Nemes's points, he had to take notes and listen at the same time for all of his arguments. Then Dr. Nemes complained that he couldn't take notes and listen at the same time and wanted to respond to 1-2 points at a time. Props to Jimmy for not calling that out.

[@JohnnyHofmann]

both did great! awesome discussion

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

Nemes seems in complete turmoil during this debate. He seems very flustered and onedge trying to respond to Jimmy and doesn't even give him time to respond. Protestantism is chaotic.

[@TKK0812]

Jimmy seems in complete turmoil during this debate. He seems very flustered and on edge trying to respond to Steven and doesn't even give him time to respond. Catholicism is chaotic.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@@TKK0812 nice cope.

[@TKK0812]

@@alphonsustheleast1537 Not to cope, it was just to show that your OP was silly and unnecessary. Maybe just respond to the content of the discussion

[@TKK0812]

@CJ P. Sounds good. I am coping.

[@anthonyd4119]

SAINT IRENAEUS “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Saint Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Saint Optatus "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) ...that in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner."-Against the Donatists 370 AD Saint Jerome “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD Saint Augustine “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). Saint Ambrose of Milan “It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). Council of Chalcedon “Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]). “Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)

[@Ttcopp12rt]

All but one is from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries (most are from the 5th) haha...Where is the vast evidence from the 1st and 2nd centuries?????🤔

[@adelinomarcelinodacostarib2406]

@@Ttcopp12rt second century 😊 IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1)

[@cactoidjim1477]

@@Ttcopp12rt So what if it is from the 3rd or 4th or 5th centuries? What is the problem there?

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@cactoidjim1477 Alot closer interpretation than 16th century....or the 20th century.

[@slamrn9689]

@@Ttcopp12rt Indeed!

[@CesarScur]

Jimmy is such a nice guy, some think even a robot from the future (🤣), but that is the beatific vision or he's an angel. He had to endure the volley from Dr. Steven at once and then reply but could not address whole for the sake of the Dr. Beautiful patience and charity.

[@CesarScur]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Thanks for your response. (a) I could be mistaken and you right on it. But My reading was that you were missing his point. That could appear as misrepresentation to you. (b) That same grace was not conceded to him when you were doing you 5 points forcing Akin into memorizing it all... Without complaining.

[@margaridapatrao8]

@@CesarScur to be fair, different people work in different ways. So Jimmy being able to memorize it all doesn't mean Steven had to. They are different people and function in different ways, so I thought it was a nice thing that things could be adapted to each other's way of working.

[@CesarScur]

@@margaridapatrao8 debates don't change rules mid game. They have rules, and the rebuttal part is shorter than presentation but with the same time for both sides. Following the debate rules is fair. Complaining that the other has better memory during the debate is not. Perhaps he should not use 5 points if he cannot hold the replies to them all in his head.

[@RighteousPaladin]

Mormons are also very nice and beatific and there are harsh Catholics, too. JS

[@CesarScur]

@@RighteousPaladin one cannot see paradise on earth chosing what to follow from the gospel or lacking humility to accept the incapacity to know the truth alone. No, the beatific vision is for the Saints. And I have not seen any saint outside the Catholic Church.

[@dougy6237]

Thank you Jimmy Akin for your service to Christ and his holy Church!

[@DryApologist]

I think Dr. Nemes' point about why Matthew 16:18 uses two different Greek words for 'rock' can be addressed by considering that 'Petros' was used to identify Peter by name, but then 'petras' is used to signify that the noun of 'rock' is then being referred to. This does not mean that Peter is not the rock though rather it indicates that when Peter is addressed the spelling of 'Petros' is used to signify his name, but when a 'rock' is being referred to the word 'petras' is used to indicate that a mineral is being referred to. However, this does not negate that the play on words is still in reference to Peter. So, basically saying: "You are Peter [which means rock] and on this rock I will build my church". So, the different spelling is used to signify the different uses of the term. The play on words though is still about Peter.

[@DryApologist]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes right, but I think it makes sense that a different spelling is used to bring out the pun, though I understand it is debatable.

[@AlbertoKempis]

Wow. I think you've explain it very well. Simple and flows naturally. Thank you.

[@Mkvine]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes So since both words mean the same thing, doesn’t that imply Peter was the rock?

[@Mkvine]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes The verse uses a demonstrative adjective (tautee “this”), which specifies someone in the immediate grammatical context to the accompanying noun ‘rock.’ The only other rock-like imagery that is illustrated in the immediate proximity is Petros (Peter) which is a proper name meaning rock (cf., John 1:42).

[@johnritter9947]

Petra is the FEMININE noun form and could never be used to refer to a man. Hence why Matthew used Petros. Plain and simple

[@Pax-Christi]

"It seems to me", the classical Protestant argument when you're your own authority and you can interpret theology to suit your own personal agenda.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

Like how Nemes said he doesn't care what the Church Fathers believed. Because somehow 2000 years later his interpretation is superior to the very first disciples and successors of the Apostles.

[@EpoRose1]

Can you supply an example of how the Church Fathers disagreed?

[@TKK0812]

Did you use your own private interpretation and authority to decide that catholicism gets the interpretation correct when you joined the church? It may shock you to note that Jimmy Akin wishes catholics would not use this "argument"

[@a.d1287]

@YAJUN YUAN what did the church fathers not disagree on?

[@jimmydavid1993]

What do you expect of phenomenologist.

[@matthewrobson6335]

Jimmy's arguments were more convincing.

[@Draezeth]

As a Protestant, I agree.

[@aaronmueller5802]

@YAJUN YUAN Except your scheme falls apart when you include verse 19. Jimmy' section makes sense, since v. 17-19 are a blessing said by Jesus, a single chiasmus., But you are including a back and forth conversation between Jesus and Peter and half of this blessing, which makes no sense when looking for structure.

[@kathyweiland4732]

Great job Jimmy you nailed it

[@SavedAndSentMinistries]

Stephen might be intelligent but the way he handled this debate was awful. I’m a Protestant and I found he helped convince me into the Catholic view. Awful debate.

[@janet6379]

The second row in Akin's table becomes a nonsense statement on Nemes' reading. It's like Jesus is saying: "Simon, I am giving you a new name - Rock - but it is a meaningless name change because I am building my Church on some rock that is NOT you." Why would Jesus speak this kind of nonsense?

[@japexican007]

“Some rock” also known as Jesus being the Christ

[@Skarlet-ju8sr]

I had a childlike approach to the rock statements *Simon you're awesome, i'm changing your name to the Rock, and on this Rock I build my Church.*

[@pmlm1571]

yes, smart Skarlet--the literal (obvious) sense comes first, and all else builds on that!

[@samcorreias]

The amount of Petra songs that came to my mind during this conversation is Beyond Belief

[@TheSonnygandara]

I would of asked the question why did Jesus change Simons name to Peter to begin with? What was the whole point in changing his name in the first place? Out of all the apostles only Simon got a new name. Why? Paul changed his own name from Saul to Paul but Jesus changed Simons name. A name that so happens to mean Rock

[@pmlm1571]

good question!

[@margaridapatrao8]

I liked that both of them were very cordial and polite.

[@rickfilmmaker3934]

Jimmy's knowledge and his confidence, because he's right, is inspiring and enlightening.

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!

[@jimmydavid1993]

One of the reasons Protestantism does NOt speak to me. It seems essentially about "disagreeing" on interpretations on the very same bible that is the 'sole rule of faith'

[@peter_hobbs]

@YAJUN YUAN but science isn’t the sole methodology or authority for understanding the natural world, besides naturalism alone can’t explain reality.

[@Draezeth]

I think you might be getting that impression because most of your exposure to Protestant thinking has been in the context of debating Catholic thinking. Protestants have many positive scriptural arguments for their position, as well as evidential ones.

[@jimmydavid1993]

@@Draezeth interesting. I wish to hear those, especially devoid of protesting, as you are claiming. How weird it is that a sole rule of faith' will remain so excessively polyvalent and still remain a legitimate sole rule of faith and morals. But I hear you, my dear.

[@jimmydavid1993]

@YAJUN YUAN another name for your so-called "methodological naturalism", as you just defined it, is scientism. I am sure you don't wanna know how bad scientism is. One of its major issues is self-refutation.

[@jimmydavid1993]

@YAJUN YUAN granted if that you meant by your earlier definitions

[@FullMetalThomist]

I think if you have to jump through so many hoops and perform mental and verbal gymnastics to this degree, you’re probably wrong. Pride is the root of all sin, there is great joy in acceptance of truth.

[@MrFreddyd3]

excellent, excellent debate!!

[@MontyRL]

Akin won the debate before Nemes even had a chance to speak

[@johnlong8037]

THAT'S FUNNY AS HELL !!! YOUR RIGHT !!!

[@Zosso-1618]

The difference between πέτρος and πέτρα has always appeared to me this way. Πέτρος is less common (at least in my years of reading and studying ancient Greek) than πέτρα is, so usually you’d say the latter rather than the former. However, πέτρα is feminine whereas πέτρος is masculine, so it makes sense to call Peter, who is a man, by a masculine noun rather than a feminine now. Hence comes the difference between πέτρος and πέτρα in this verse.

[@Zosso-1618]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes By no means was St. Matthew constrained to use only the most common words. Using the most common words, I suppose, might help with getting the Gospel out there in public sphere; that's only an unimportant guess I just now thought of, so I'd need to do more work to support it were it to be true. Regardless, I don't think it's too helpful to conjecture what the authors of Scripture could have written in spite of what they actually did write. This would seem to make St. Matthew and, by extension, God Who wrote through him sloppy writers. Furthermore, I could make such conjectures against the case you presented. If St. Matthew believed the distinction between the πέτρος who is Peter and the πέτρα who is Christ was so large and important to understand, why would he have used two words which looked and sounded so similar to each other and which had, by that time, become synonymous? Would it not have been far more prudent to use λίθος instead of πέτρα? Πέτρος and λίθος are far more distinct from each other than the words in the real verse, and so this would more easily conduce the reader to understand the difference between Peter and the one on whom Christ's church is to be built, namely Himself. Why would St. Matthew choose to cause such great confusion when it could easily have been averted?

[@Zosso-1618]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes But you would agree that πέτρος and λίθος would make the difference much more apparent than πέτρος and πέτρα do?

[@Zosso-1618]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes The founding of the Church and the significance of Peter, if any, would seem to be a more important matter than word play.

[@Zosso-1618]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes It’s a passage where someone is receiving a new name from God, which I’ve always taken as important. Genesis 17 wherein Abram becomes Abraham and Genesis 32 wherein Jacob becomes Israel are prime examples of this, but you could even argue that God naming things has been important since the beginning in Genesis 1. Why should I not understand Matthew 16 to be similarly “big and momentous”?

[@glorianiaga2111]

Dr. Nemes with respects, This is not an exclusive Roman Catholic reading. This is not even a Catholic v Protestant debate. One can hold the obvious reading of the text as Peter being the foundation regaddless of tradition. Most NT scholars note that the Peter is the rock in this passage, even the highly respected D.A. Carson. If I may ask, where did you get your Chiasmic Structure? Is it your own making or a scholar proposes it too?

[@Draezeth]

Although I reject the concept of Peter being the rock, I have to admit that Akin did a *far* better job arguing his point than Nemes. Akin offered many positive arguments, while 90% of what Nemes said was "I disagree".

[@Draezeth]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Thank you for doing this debate. I *was* exaggerating in my comment. Still, it did feel like you were always on the back foot in the back-and-forths. You did offer some solid points, but I particularly found that your responses to Akin's rebuttals and counterpoints to be weak.

[@nicksteini]

If you‘re saying that you don‘t believe in Peter being the Rock, are you saying you would beat Jimmy in a debate? Coming from somewhat of a neutral background, it seems pretty illogical and mainly culturally dependant, not to see peter as the rock..

[@nicksteini]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes As with this belief and most others, it is usually determined by the environment we grow up in. Whereas this may not apply to you, as you clearly do not represent the level of understanding of most christians, do you at least agree that, from face value, Peter seems to be meant as the rock? To arrive at your conclusions definitely involves a lot of deep analysis and interpretation. It seems to me as if most protestants start off from the point, that the papacy is wrong and then inductively, post-hoc, interpret scripture in this light...

[@nicksteini]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes So for you to see Peter as the rock, Jesus would have had to name him Petra instead of Petrus?

[@tonyabrown7796]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Is there a reason no one brought up the many references to God being the rock in the old testament?

[@Filioque_]

1:07:00 what is really unnatural is continuing to disregard the fact that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. Not in Greek.

[@victoriasantos9465]

Awesome content ✨🔥

[@quad9363]

Another point of consideration as to why Matthew may have utilized the Pertros/petra distinction: in Greek, ‘petra’ has an explicitly feminine gender to it, similar to how the word for ‘house’ in Spanish, ‘casa’, is a femininely gendered noun. However, Peter is a man, so it’d be inappropriate for his name to bear the feminine gender to it, so is instead ending with the masculine form of ‘petros’.

[@BornAgainRN]

That is an old, refuted argument. Masculine/feminine tenses in languages has nothing to do with gender dependency. A female cat can be called "el gato" even though this is a masculine tense. Jesus is referred as "petra" which is feminine, even though He is a Man. Jesus could have renamed Simon "Petras" instead of "Petros" & it would not have been a linguistic problem.

[@quad9363]

@@BornAgainRN Calling Peter ‘petra’ would be like naming your male son Stephanie instead of Stephen.

[@aaronmueller5802]

@YAJUN YUAN Why "must" Matthew have used the same word? You admit that Petra was more common, and in in other comment threads you have not been able to name a single instance in Matthew or the rest of the New Testament where Petros is used to refer to a rock. So why would Matthew use Petros instead of Petra to refer to "the rock". As far as we know, petra may be the only word St. Matthew had ever used to refer to an actual rock. But since Peter is a man, it would make sense it have his name be in a masculine form, thus Petros. So Matthew did not need to use the same word, in fact there was no reason to, since during the time Matthew was written, there was no distinction between Petros and petra for the average Greek speaker.

[@abdumasihalarkhabil9667]

If Jesus want to say something, He must expressed it the way i want. If not, then i can reject or accept His message without rejecting other messages

[@juice-man320]

it wasn’t Matthew who walked on water. It was Peter.

[@ratatoskr9366]

It's interesting to me how Dr. Nemes views Peter's references in Matthew are "negative". Peter literally represents us. We all have probably denied Jesus at one point, we all have sought earthly rewards before holy ones, and we all have lost our temper, maybe at the Lord. We all have constantly questioned Him. But despite all of this, despite all of his flaws, Jesus still trusts Peter. He still entrusts him to lead the apostles and be the rock on which His church is built. And that is SO important for us. It shows that no matter how many times we have made mistakes like Peter, God still sees greatness in us. And also, Peter is constantly named first before all the apostles in the Gospel. It's clear that Peter is the leader.

[@rjay5603]

God doesn't see greatness in us. Take a lesson from Peter, who had to be loved and strengthened by King Jesus Christ. Had it not been for King Jesus finding Peter, he would have continued to hide in shame, etc. You are right, we are like Peter, denying, sinning, cursing, and questioning God; yet, God continues to shower grace, love, and mercy on sinners like us. And, God does it for His own reasons, not because He sees greatness in us.

[@davidfoley8546]

He's Dwayne Johnson. A five second google search could have saved you from this two hour discussion.

[@RighteousPaladin]

Badum tss

[@awilson8521]

In the video, at 22:20, the chart assumes that "and on this rock" is an explanation of "You are Peter" and ignores the reason why Peter is Blessed comes earlier in the scripture: Peter is Blessed because he knows that Jesus is the Christ. So, it seems a better interpretation is : Jesus is Christ, Peter is a disciple, and by the relationship (of faith) God builds His church.

[@uchennanwogu2142]

adding to the word

[@JRey-re9rl]

The ridiculousness of Akin’s argument is baffling. “Peter, you may think you’re a small rock, but you’re a bigger rock than you think you are (paraphrase).” The Greek doesn’t support Akin’s argument or any other of his arguments. That is Akin’s kryptonite. Dr. Nemes did a fantastic job. A true scholar of the original language and text.

[@TheBrunarr]

Overall really good discussion

[@brendansheehan6180]

Anyone get the feeling that Steven spends a ton of time making objections that stop Jimmy's train of reasoning?

[@TKK0812]

1:01:00 1:01:20 1:15:15 Just a few of Jimmy cutting off Steven. They both did it.

[@floydthomas4195]

I mean is this really necessary? You have to use insane amount of mental gymnastics not to see the primacy of Peter in scripture And you have to use insane amount of mental gymnastics to not see the Papal (Roman) supremacy in the early church. Like, i dont even see how can anyone, who is intellectually honest about this, argue otherwise. Inb4: ''Jesus was referring to an actual rock lying there on the ground'' ''But the Pope is the Antichrist, my pastor Jim Bob told me so''' Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.): “[Peter is] the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute." Tertullian (211): "[R]emember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]." Letter of Clement to James (221): "“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed.” Origen (248): "[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]." Cyprian of Carthage (251): "[A] primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair."

[@TheMarymicheal]

These commentaries settles all disputes Yup , now prots go down even to prove these are not authentic.

[@floydthomas4195]

​@CJ P. This guy is a giga coper, i honestly pity him - he is like one of those atheists, grasping at every straw, trying to convince himself that he is right, just because his presuppositions tell him so.

[@stevehall1218]

Some say the rock is Mount Hermon where the fallen angels (or the sons of God from Genesis 6) resided Jesus closes the gates to imprison them. Readers of Genesis at the time were aware of Mount Hermon and the sons of God.

[@PeteloTeki]

Very good Jimmy I like your good work

[@faithharbour]

And then there’s Dr Heiser who has argued it refers to an actual rock/location.

[@unam9931]

Yeah because they stoof in front of a real rock

[@quad9363]

But that interpretation doesn’t fit with the immediate context, where Jesus 1st blesses Peter (which means rock), then identifies Peter, then gives Peter the keys. For Jesus to midway through this blessing to point at a location (which the text doesn’t explicitly mention) just seems like a non-sequitor, so should be reckoned as a less plausible reading. Also, it doesn’t make sense what Jesus would mean if he were to say that he will figuratively build a figurative church on a literal rock at a literal place.

[@faithharbour]

@@quad9363 Yes, I agree. The way Heiser explains it is because the location they were at at this point was, in its time, thought to be the entrance to hell. He explains it better than I do, obviously.

[@quad9363]

@@---wp3oc What would it mean then for Jesus to say that he will build his church upon Mt. Hermon, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it? Is Matthew understanding the gates of hell to be literal, which demons and evil spirits could break out of, but not be able to withstand a church, if it were built on that literal location?

[@quad9363]

@@---wp3oc If it’s theological in its messaging, what is the relevance of referring to a literal place? It’d be almost like saying, ‘you are the light of my life, and THIS light [pointing to a nearby lamp] will keep the darkness at bay.’ The figurative component to the first part of the message would be confused by the second portion, if you try to impose a literal location into the message. But I will look into Heiser’s defense further, because he is very intelligent and I’m likely not grasping his position very well.

[@dave1370]

"What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession." St. John Chrysostom "What meaneth, "Upon this rock I will build my Church"? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock," saith He, "I will build my Church." Mighty praise! So then, Peter saith, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God:" the devils also say, "We know who thou art, the Son of God, the Holy One of God." This Peter said, this also the devils: the words the same, the mind not the same. And how is it clear that Peter said this with love? Because a Christian's faith is with love, but a devil's without love." St. Augustine

[@dogbackwardspodcast]

I was more convinced by Nemes argument: we are called Christian’s which is little Christ. Peter is a Little Rock but Jesus is THE rock.

[@uchennanwogu2142]

Jesus is the cornerstone but Peter means rock, not little rock

[@liraco_mx]

*"Roman Catholicism, which is a very elaborate and well defined and internally coherent and sort of a fortress of a theological system"* - Dr. Nemes (2:03:44) Great summary of this debate: common sense vs mental gymnastics.

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Fortress is self-contained. Nothing is allowed IN. 🙉 Won’t Hear 🙈 Won’t See

[@liraco_mx]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Everyone is welcome in, but not everyone will want to enter. Also, in the end the Kingdom will be a fortress of sorts with well defined boundaries, see Rev 21:12 🏰

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

Also when I read the passage I think when Jesus ask Peter who He is, and Peter tells Him that He is the Messiah, Jesus is telling Peter, good job/blessed are you for knowing this, and on this idea/rock, that I am the Messiah, is what I will build my church on, and that makes the most sense to me when I read it.

[@namapalsu2364]

Do you know that several other people also say that Jesus is the Messiah but Christ didn't treat them as He did Peter? Like Nathaniel and Martha for example.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

There are various other messianic statements in the New Testament. Why did Christ not call their acknowledgments "the rock" upon which the Church should be built?

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

@@alphonsustheleast1537 Because he didn't idk lol, doesn't mean the context in which I am reading the passage isn't true, or makes sense in the way I have layed it out.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@YuGiOhDuelChannel yet. Simon became Kepha. The elephant in the room. Is that Simon's new name was literally rock.

[@alphonsustheleast1537]

@@YuGiOhDuelChannel The Catholic church also believes that the rock being St. Peter's confession is part of the equation. You don't see any relevance that there were numerous messianic statements, but only Peter had his name changed to "Rock" and then immediately after that Christ gave him the keys of kingdom?

[@CPATuttle]

I never understood the confusion on this topic. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Cephas. Which means rock in Aramaic.

[@uchennanwogu2142]

its pride holding people back

[@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc]

Simon Peter ~ small rock Rockbed ~ large Foundation. Christ’s church was established on a large Rockbed Foundation. What was Said = Foundation. What was said = Truth. “You are The Christ; the son of the living God.” = Foundational Truth that established WHO Christ IS. Peter is made of same stuff, rock. Consider this ~ IF error is admitted, that means there never should have ever been any “pope”. 🤔 💭 🧐

[@CPATuttle]

@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Yeah Jesus was belittling Peter. That’s what he was doing 👍🏼😂

[@uchennanwogu2142]

In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter). But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter Cephas=Rock, not small rock, just rock@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc

[@doublecutnut753]

Steven's argument about Matthew's Gospel not reconciling Peter is very convincing.

[@gristly_knuckle]

If I become aware that if I don't consume something that it will kill me, then I must decide whether to consume it and live or else release it and die. And so awareness may kill good intention in this way and save Christians.

[@joelkelly4154]

Peter

[@japexican007]

1. Ephesians2:19-20 Yes what were the apostles preaching: ‭‭ “but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:23‬ ‭KJV‬‬ What if they preached some other gospel towards you? “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1:8‬ ‭KJV‬‬ 2. 1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 3. Matthew 16: the foundation is That “Jesus is The Christ, upon this is what Jesus founded his Church 4. Rev21: the twelve apostles of: The Lamb, the foundation they set were for The Lamb 5. 1Peter2:6-7: acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, to them that believe he is their chief cornerstone and they are not confounded, to those that don’t believe and are disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed is made the head of their cornerstone, a stone which causes them to stumble, Jesus to those that don’t believe is but an obstacle in their way, a nuisance

[@christvictoriouskingdomnow2473]

1Co_10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

[@Draezeth]

Ephesians 2:20 "Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone;"

[@tonyabrown7796]

Jimmy has a great way of communicating. He is very convincing even though he is completely wrong. I find him to be inconsistent. He told Steven not to rely on the authority of the church fathers or to argue from absence, and then later he said he accepts the real presence in the Eucharist because of an absence of dispute among the church fathers. He completely ignores any scripture that does not support his position and adds to other parts. How is Jesus telling Simon to strengthen his brothers assigning him the role of pope? It is an unsupported extrapolation.

[@willire8811]

“Now show me your glory.” It was a request that was perhaps prompted by great faith and a desire to see every last bit of God’s holiness, majesty and perfection. It was also too bold of a wish, for as God told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” Just as the human eye isn’t able to stare directly at the sun without being blinded, sinful human beings can’t stare directly at God and survive. Fortunately, God graciously protected Moses from himself by putting Moses into a cleft in the rock, so that he, an unworthy sinner himself, could get a glorious but survivable glimpse of God’s glory. Of course, God isn’t only the God who protects us from our overzealousness for communion and connection with him, but he’s also the God who protects us from our enemies of sin, death, and Satan. In fact, he is the God who protects us from the storm of his very own wrath against us and our sins.

[@davidszaraz4605]

The NT writers never use πέτρος (Pétros) to refer to *rock* . The NT writers use πέτρα (Pétra) for *rock* exclusively. Dr. Nemes should explain, why should we expect Matthew using πέτρος (Pétros) for "upon this *rock* " . The only place πέτρος (Pétros) is used is for Peter´s name. Matthew would be inconsistent if he would use πέτρος (Pétros) to refer to a physical or metaphorical rock, because for that the NT writers used πέτρα (Pétra) only. So this whole objection that Matthew should have used Pétros twice, that would be kind of a strange thing to do for Matthew. The NT writers clearly used πέτραν "Pétra" only to refer to *rock* , like Mt 7:24 ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν , Mt 7:25 ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, Mt 27:51 καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν , Mt 27:60 ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ καὶ προσκυλίσας , Mk 15:26 λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας καὶ προσεκύλισεν , Lk 6:48 ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν πλημμύρης δὲ , Lk 8:6 ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ φυὲν, Lk 8:13 ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οἳ ὅταν , Romans 9:33 προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου καὶ , 1 Cor 10:4 προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου καὶ , Rev 6:15 εἰς τὰς πέτρας τῶν ὀρέων , Rev 6:16 καὶ ταῖς πέτραις πέσετε ἐφ' . This I think is a huge problem for Dr. Nemes´s case, because if he is not able to demonstrate from the NT that "Pétros" and "Pétra" were used interchangeably by the NT writers for "rock" than we should not expect Matthew to use it in Mt 16:18.

[@johnritter9947]

This is an excellent comment thank you

[@davidszaraz4605]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Again the only reason he says "Petros" when he changes the apostle´s name from Simon to Peter, is because it would be odd to use Pétra to a male person. Evangelical bible scholar D.A. Carson writes, “In Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” New Testament Protestant scholar R.T. France concurs: “The reason for the different Greek form is simply that Peter, as a man, needs a masculine name, and so the form Petros has been coined.” So no, I don´t agree with you that this even more supports your case. For the NT writers and their audience, R.T. France says the same, he even says that "petros as a common noun is unlikely to have been familiar to Matthew’s readers, as it is not found in the LXX" So would you say D.A. Carson and R.T. France are wrong? Therefor it is clear why Matthew uses Pétros only for Peter, because he is a man not woman, but in EVERY INSTANCE for *rock* they use Pétra, because that was the way to refer to *rock* . Simple as that, you desperately try to make your case, but clearly the NT does not support your logic.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@@johnritter9947 You are welcome, actually protestant scholars acknowledge this, so I don´t understand why does Dr. Nemes disagree, it is clear the ONLY INSTANCE pétros is used is in the case of Peter the apostle, and only due to the fact he is a man, since Pétra would be kind of odd as a name for a male person. This is actually the reason why Matthew says first "Pétros" and than "Pétra. Because "Pétros" is a name for a man, but when they want to says *rock* , the NT writers use "Pétra" exclusively, since this was the ordinary way to refer to a rock.

[@davidszaraz4605]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I agree with Carson that there is no difference between Petros and Petra in meaning. What I am saying that Petra was used exclusively however in practice at least for them and for their audience. I can give you similar examples when some hungarian words have the same meaning, still we prefer to use only some. I would say you are incoherent since Carson also says that Petros was used only to give a male name for Peter. So why do you accept one statement from Carson but not the other? Still, if we want to be objective, we should look at how the NT writers referd to "rock" and they used "petra" only, that is the plain evidence. It is also clear Peter could not get a feminine name. So objectively we have a case why he made the distinction between petros in one case but petra in the other.

[@samruggiero1778]

@@davidszaraz4605 Your explanation makes sense.

[@JengaJay]

“OKAY BUT ROCK ISNT THE SAME AS LITHOS” 😂 But yea, this rock argument is getting old, let’s stop this funny business and accept a least some form of primacy to Peter as a stable foundation which is given as a charisma to those who hold this office of “Rock”

[@Mw-mo2wg]

Yes let’s just drop something that lets me have power over you. Ok funny business over Peter is the rock Peter alone has the keys. Now where does that ole infallible magisterium come in? Even a pro Peter is the rock view doesn’t give you the Roman concept. Did god not make sure we knew the scepter would not depart from Judah? Did god not say to David and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Funny how when god sets up earthly governments he is explicit when they will last forever but in this passage Peter has no mention of future spiritual descendants who will hold his office. Odd how the one inference you want us to accept is only possibly inferred but in every other case it is explicitly mentioned that god is passing something on beyond the one person he’s talking to or about.

[@JengaJay]

@@Mw-mo2wg These seems like a misunderstanding of Magisterial infallibility in the first place, and I’ll highly recommend you read Fr. Vincent Mcnabb’s book called “Infallibility”. Now this verse is not suppose to get you an explicit doctrine of infallibility “Ex Cathedra”, Rome never makes such a claim in any of its documents such as Pastor Aerternus or Satis Cognitum. Rather the closest you get to such would be the citations of Luke 22:32 along with John 21:15-17 properly interpreted as an immediate governance over the Universal Church’s flock in which the promise of infallible faith along with immediate jurisdiction which must be submitted to prevents [By divine Providence] the church from falling into error. The succession of descendants is clearly inferred [If you want to actually to stop resisting that Peter was conferred to be the Solid immovable rock of the visible church] by means of the Petrine office being perpetually unable to have the gates of hell prevail against since the Church will be founded on this solid rock. If the promise is only in the temporal life of this Petrine privilege then Christ’s promise that the church will be built upon this temporally infallible office is another way to say, “Upon Peter’s life time, I will grant him a special charisma of solidity but when he dies the church will be susceptible to error” which not only is just a useless promise but goes contrary to other promises such as he will be with the church “till the end of the ages”. Hence why there is Roman Pontiffs such as Pope Leo along with many other early fathers who attribute this office to the successors of Rome : `Pope Leo Sermon 3` > “…the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See. For this, dearly-beloved, was gained by that confession, which, inspired in the Apostle’s heart by God the Father, transcended all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake. For throughout the Church Peter daily says, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it.”

[@grahamwall8374]

Dr. Nemes, I noticed "I and Thou" on your shelf. Any chance we'll see a video about it on your channel sometime ? :)

[@hobbywright8495]

Considering that the Church Fathers all held to the primacy of the seat of Peter, I think any of the alternate examples like St Augustine’s sermon are to be taken pastorally and not theologically. My two.

[@ericprine8804]

Nemes interrupting seems more defensive than unnecessary..

[@TKK0812]

1:01:00 1:01:20 1:15:15 Just a few of Jimmy cutting off Steven.

[@shanesilverstein287]

@@TKK0812 It was actually Dr Nemes who started it, even Cameron was taken aback at this during Jimmy's Rebuttal time and Dr. Nemes stopped Jimmy so he can respond. A good debater is proficient enough in being able to listen and take down notes, though I understand this is an informal debate.

[@TKK0812]

@@shanesilverstein287 So instead of just admitting that both of them did it and moving on, you felt compelled to offer up the "Well he started it!" defense? OK.

[@shanesilverstein287]

@@TKK0812 First and for all I did not deny that Jimmy interrupted. Interruption is common in debates, especially in cross-exam albeit this is not a formal one. Just saying Dr. Nemes started the interruption where he could have just took down notes and wait for his turn( As Jimmy did on Dr. Nemes rebuttal round.) Cameron was even taken aback by this. And since then the discussion took on a turn of he-interrupts-who. You could say that Dr. Nemes rushed to cross-exam prior to Jimmy finishing his rebuttal.

[@3leon306]

Nemes is not convincing …

[@jackfrost2978]

This discussion is a great example of how I view the bible, as a whole. I think both of these gentlemen are likely right. I see both of these views to likely be right in their own way. I every likelihood God is flexing on us. Putting in a small nuance that is great in depth and meaning. Easy to be perceived as the individual view will see it. Open for discussion among those who seek deeper meaning. And likely greater than anyone thought, or mind is likely to understand or give credit to. I'd say the winner of the discussion. Is the discussion its self. Thank you!

[@williammagsambol2143]

These men are positing exclusionary claims, one answers in the affirmative and the other in the negative, meaning both cannot be right. One is right, one is wrong (or both are wrong) but the idea that both are right in their primary claim is not an option.

[@TheBrunarr]

Half way through and I wonder if they're gonna get to the question of why Jesus decided to change Simon's name to Peter...

[@shanesilverstein287]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes But in Acts, Galatians, and Epistles of Peter, the Authors don't call him Simon anymore, but in his Jesus-appointed-name PETER. His greeting in his epistles say it all, unless it's all Hubris in his part. The name change is a blessing and a title, given to those with special mission like Abram who became Abraham, Jacob who became Israel.

[@shanesilverstein287]

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes hey Dr. Nemes thanks for the reply. Under Inspiration, Peter actually called himself Peter when he wrote his Epistles meaning everyone who read it then knew who it was from. Again the name Peter is given by Jesus to signify that Simon is going to have a special mission. Just like Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. Also it's not uncommon to still call these people who received such blessings to be called by their previous name. Like today, we still call Jacob by his original name even though God had changed his name. So the fact still remains: Jesus blessed Peter with that name.

[@japexican007]

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭3:7‬ ‭KJV‬‬ Jesus has the key of David

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

According to scripture in various places Jesus is the judge, in Luke 22 Jesus calls the apostles Judges.. The Bible call Jesus the foundation... Ephesians 2 calls the apostles the foundation.. so Jesus can have the keys according to the passage you quoted but Mathew 16 records Jesus GIVING the keys to Peter... So there's no contradiction.

[@Justas399]

@@ezekielizuagie7496 Where did Peter use the key Christ gave him? Notice that in Ephesians 2 there is no mention of Peter being the foundation.

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

@@Justas399 what is the use of your question about Peter using the keys and what do you aim to prove.. lastly read my comment again... On your second point

[@Justas399]

@@ezekielizuagie7496 If Peter was the one who got the keys, then we should see where and how you used them. So do you know how he used the keys? Were these keys to be passed onto others? If so, where does the NT say this and to whom?

[@ezekielizuagie7496]

@@Justas399 I don't subscribe to Sola scriptura, So all the points you are raising even though they have been answered over and over again. I don't want to oblige you.

[@a.d1287]

The catholics hold that jesus and peter are both the rock

[@SolusChristus12]

@YAJUN YUAN there cant be two rocks!

[@a.d1287]

@YAJUN YUAN how does it matter

[@a.d1287]

@@SolusChristus12 scripture is multivalent

[@a.d1287]

@YAJUN YUAN ok. Thats not necessarily a point of contention since you concede to my point

[@Aethelhart]

18:48 Catholic here, while I see Jimmy's point and agree with his conclusions, I could easily see a Protestant counter argue this and say that Jesus was saying that Peter was blessed because, although he is but a little rock who cannot compare to the great Rock, he will still be given the keys to heaven, that is, the fruit of that revelation that is salvation. I don't think that flows as clearly from the text, but I would have been interested to see Jimmy deal with that possible retort.