Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[ckozlowski]

why can't i be in the love fest?

[Starets]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']So with that said, my question is..(only for those who have a good understanding of biblical interpretation) i just want to know why it's not reasonable to believe that "Rock" stands for Christ instead of peter.[/quote]

Because I see no good textual or historical reason to believe that the "Rock" strands for Christ in this instance, and plenty of textual and historical reason to believe St. Peter was the "Rock" in this instance. My reasons for this stance can be found in the following article, which I did not write:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp[/url]

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']I want to thank Mateo for posting a new topic for me. I guarantee he's the most Knowledgeable person in here,

So with that said, my question is..(only for those who have a good understanding of biblical interpretation) i just want to know why it's not reasonable to believe that "Rock" stands for Christ instead of peter.

who's got this one?[/quote]



Never spoke to you before, but Bout time Mateo gets some props. Thats a good first impression for me.

about your Question, couple quick points and we can go from there in whatever way you want.

-I personally have never heard the theory that the Rock stands for Christ. I have heard that it could stand for the confession, but never that the rock itself stood for Christ.

-If you have a doubt with an interpretation of scripture it helps to know what the early fathers thought of it. Universally, when the rock is mentioned it is as peter. This is what the universal patristic church taught. Which means that is what they were taught by the apostles. I have plenty of quotations, and citings of this if you want. 50 before the year 700ad from both east and west.

-involving the actual exegetical points of the text I recommend you read

[url="http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/08/authority-of-peter-in-mt-16.html"]http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/08/a...r-in-mt-16.html[/url]

-The gospel text shows Christ directing his response to Peter
"blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona"
"And I tell you, you are peter"
"I will give you"
"whatever you"

As far as cross-referencing scripture what issue are you concerned with? The overall primacy of Peter in scripture? Which shows the gospel authors to be focusing on Peter.

By the tone of your question I wonder if I am being baited. So I will accept the bait. What do you got for those of us with a good knowledge of Biblical interpretation? Im game.

[Deo Iuvente]

Simple.
It presents a false dichotomy.
there's no reason that christ being the chief cornerstone excludes Peter being the rock upon which the church is built.
The question is'nt as much "Is Christ the rock",Because catholics teach that.The problem lies in saying that Peter isn't the rock on which the church is built.There's nothing in the verse in question that supports the idea of someone else being that rock,and there's nothing anywhere else that says so.
the problem,as I said before is assuming that scripture must only have a singular meaning,Thus presenting a false dichotomy when you come to verses such as 1 Cor. 3:11/Eph 2:20; Which present both Christ [b]and [/b] the apostles as the foundation,and Christ as the capstone,And 1 Pet. 2:25/Acts 20:28,Which present both christ and the apostles as sheperds.
And I can understand from this,how you may have gotten the idea that Catholics don't beleive that Christ is the rock,You may have assumed that with singular interpretation,we beleive only peter to be the rock.

[Socrates]

(Copied from Fatima thread)

Okay, let's look at the immmediate contect of Matthew 16:
[b]"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [/b](Matt. 16:18)
Jesus Christ directly addresses Simon, and gives him a new name, Peter, which translates directly as "Rock."
Obviously, the rock on which Christ built His Church is Peter, as He is addressing Peter, and gave him the new name "Rock."
When God gives someone a new name in the Bible, it always indicates Him giving that person an important new mission (Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter).
After calling Simon-Peter "Rock," why would Christ suddenly change the topic mid-sentence to refer to something entirely different? That just would not make any sense, in any language.

The "Petra/Petros" argument is bogus, as first of all, Christ would have originally spoken Aramaic to Peter, not Greek. There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic - Kepha. The name "Petros" was given when translated into Greek, because "petra" is a feminine noun in Greek, and was changed to the masculine "Petros" to be a man's name. The word means the same thing. [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp"](Good article on this here.)[/url]

This statement of Christ is followed immediately by the following solemn declaration to Peter: [b]"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." [/b](Matt. 16:19)
Christ gives Peter the authority to bind and loose on Heaven on Earth. It is nonsensical to say that Christ is not referring to Peter here.
Christ gives Simon the name Peter (Rock) and gives him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. The meaning is clear here. Christ is obviously talking about Peter, no way around it.

The first thing to do when looking at scripture is to look at the immediate context, not to pull out other passages in the Bible not directly related to claim the word refers to something other than what it obviously refers to in the sentence. A word has no meaning out of context.

Christ also called Himself the Good Shepherd. Yet he says to Peter: "Feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17)
Again Christ entrusts Peter, to whom He has given the Keys of the Kingdom, to carry on His work on earth as a shepherd of souls.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Socrates

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387470' date='Sep 17 2007, 08:35 PM']hey guys!

I feel like i've stirred this inter-religious debate room so much.[/quote]


hehe, sorry. No offense I just thought it was funny for someone with 60 posts all in 2 threads to claim they have stirred up the board. Its all good.

[quote]QUOTE(ckozlowski @ Sep 16 2007, 08:07 AM)
I personally believe, after picking up a major in biblical studies, that many who truly trust in their bibles over the church -as scripture commands- and believe in this phenomena will come to the conclusion that satan has used his great signs and wonders to crawl his way into catholic dogma over the course of history.[/quote]

WHere did you get your major from? Just a personal note if I knew your prof.

Scripture does not command to trust the bible over the church. Scripture has no references to the nEw test cannon. And please dont assume that proto doctrine is based on an old test exegesis.

Could you tell me where Satan has crawled into catholic dogma? In your opinion of course.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Revprodeji

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1387086' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:04 PM']According to Chris (ckozlowski), we should trust the Holy Bible over the Church. Quoting him:So my question: where does the Holy Bible make such a command which explicitly shows this relationship between Church and Scriptures?

I'll start with a pretty well known quote ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm#v15"]1 Tim 3:15[/url]):[/quote]


There is no such command in the Scriptures.

Many non-Catholics think that the Church was built around the teachings of the bible... in reality, the Church gave us the bible in 400 AD.

There are at least a dozen verses that contradict the bible before church belief, and not a single one supporting it. This arguent dates back hundreds of years when people couldn't read, if people could read, the protestant deformation would have never grown so quickly or large.

A few verses:

[b]Acts 8:27[/b]
So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
[b]28 [/b]and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, [u]he was reading the prophet Isaiah[/u].
[b]29 [/b]The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
[b]30 [/b]Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, [b]"Do you understand what you are reading?" [/b]
[b]31 [/b]He replied, [b]"[u]How can I, unless someone instructs me?[/u]" [/b]So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

[b]2 Peter 1:20[/b] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[b]2 Peter 3:16[/b]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

[i]Call me crazy, but I think "To their own destruction" is a pretty big "You NEED the Church"[/i]


[b]St Matt 18:17 [/b] (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, [b]tell the church[/b]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.


[b]Luke 10:16 [/b]"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"


[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know [u][b]from whom you learned it[/b], [/u]

[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

[b]Romans 10:17[/b]
Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

[b]1 Peter 1:25[/b]
But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news [b]which was preached to you[/b]


[b]Ephesians 3:5 [/b]
which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,


[b]Ephesians 2:20[/b]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

[b]1 Corin 15:11[/b]
Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.



There are more, but it's getting late and I'm sure you get my point


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited September 18, 2007 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Oh yeah, one more thing, when you point this out to them, they go into massive denial... you'll get the "You know how to twist scripture" rebuttal and they change the subject.

There are ways to rebut that, but they are barking dogs, swine not to cast your pearls in front of... you can only hope that you planted seeds that will grow with God's Grace.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ckozlowski]

Deo, i'm just referring to the variants of the translation. So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.

First, the meaning of the word has different variants, as with many, many words we find in the bible. Seeing as it's been translated more than we'd like it to have been and we don't have a solid grasp of what Jesus really meant, we look to other places in the bible where the word has been used. Jesus had a thorough knowledge of the OT. He throws words at us that draw a plethora of meaning from the OT which give us really good insight as to exactly what he meant when he spoke. Back then many people knew what he meant, but our cultures are so far apart we couldn't even grasp many things in the NT without scholarly instruction.

These are verses from the bible that I believe is the proper way of biblical interpretation. All of my bib. stu. professors have more than this one basis for showing the true meaning of this text. This is just one that i'll argue due to my lack of knowledge.

first let me quote my fellow Socrates:

"The first thing to do when looking at scripture is to look at the immediate context, not to pull out other passages in the Bible not directly related to claim the word refers to something other than what it obviously refers to in the sentence. A word has no meaning out of context."

This couldn't be any more valid than presented here. But what Socrates fails to mention is that this word is very much in question. I'll show you why.

I'm going to quote my friend socrates here because i know that these are going to be your next argument.

"The "Petra/Petros" argument is bogus, as first of all, Christ would have originally spoken Aramaic to Peter, not Greek. There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic - Kepha. The name "Petros" was given when translated into Greek, because "petra" is a feminine noun in Greek, and was changed to the masculine "Petros" to be a man's name. The word means the same thing."

First of all, this couldn't be any more false if your mothers life depended on it. The book of matthew was not written in Aramaic. Yes, Jesus spoke aramaic, but the gospels were written a while after Jesus' time. It was passed down by oral tradition, i'm sure your aware of this..you see where i'm going with this.

I will quote Soc again because this is your next line of reason:

"This statement of Christ is followed immediately by the following solemn declaration to Peter: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)
Christ gives Peter the authority to bind and loose on Heaven on Earth. It is nonsensical to say that Christ is not referring to Peter here."

This right here is where your mixing nonsense with rhetoric to make what you're conveying much more powerful. Let's keep this forum free of powerful but senseless words.

These are a list of verses from the bible that use the word "ROCK" in other contexts so one can derive an absolute meaning. Why do we do this? simply because one cannot take a guess. The variant is clearly undetermined. It can only be determined by looking how it is used through out the bible. This is a scholarly tool. Fail to use it. Fail to understand the bible.

This list can be found within this article which I did not write. [url="http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html"]http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/rock.html[/url]

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15)

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3:16, 17)

Now we should be prepared to apply this method, in order to find God's answer to our question. Once again our question. In Matthew 16:18 is the "Rock" upon which Christ established His church Peter? Or is the "Rock" Christ? God's answer:

For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4).

Jesus said to them, "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejectcd, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)

For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, "Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:33)

Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.

To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,

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. Unto you therefore which believe He is preciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-8)

This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)

Turning to the Old Testament we find the following:

The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.

God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.

Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.

Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name's sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).

I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.

Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2

He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8

To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.

but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.

O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.

The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.

Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD! He is THE ROCK, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.

Then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 18).

And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.

So, what do you make of this?

[ckozlowski]

[quote]Many non-Catholics think that the Church was built around the teachings of the bible... in reality, the Church gave us the bible in 400 AD.[/quote]

Yep..
[quote]There are at least a dozen verses that contradict the bible before church belief, and not a single one supporting it. This arguent dates back hundreds of years when people couldn't read, if people could read, the protestant deformation would have never grown so quickly or large.[/quote]

We're not talking contradiction..we're talking "assuming". ...even if your church was the real church as you caim.. satan knows your not dumb!


[quote][b]Acts 8:27[/b]
So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
[b]28 [/b]and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, [u]he was reading the prophet Isaiah[/u].
[b]29 [/b]The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
[b]30 [/b]Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, [b]"Do you understand what you are reading?" [/b]
[b]31 [/b]He replied, [b]"[u]How can I, unless someone instructs me?[/u]" [/b]So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

[b]2 Peter 1:20[/b] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[b]2 Peter 3:16[/b]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

[i]Call me crazy, but I think "To their own destruction" is a pretty big "You NEED the Church"[/i]
[b]St Matt 18:17 [/b] (Jesus said) If he refuses to listen to them, [b]tell the church[/b]. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
[b]Luke 10:16 [/b]"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"
[b]2 Timoty 3:14 [/b]
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know [u][b]from whom you learned it[/b], [/u]

[b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

[b]Romans 10:17[/b]
Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

[b]1 Peter 1:25[/b]
But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news [b]which was preached to you[/b]
[b]Ephesians 3:5 [/b]
which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,
[b]Ephesians 2:20[/b]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

[b]1 Corin 15:11[/b]
Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
There are more, but it's getting late and I'm sure you get my point [/quote]

These really don't have much to do with what will refute my argument.

[ckozlowski]

I have to read the rest of the book of Exodus tonight, i'll try and find more time for this tomorrow. see you guys. looking forward to your comments

[N/A Gone]

'ckozlowski'

[quote]Deo, I'm just referring to the variants of the translation. So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.[/quote]

Christ never calls himself a stone. Regardless of the translation. You are not using exegesis here.

[quote]First, the meaning of the word has different variants, as with many, many words we find in the bible. Seeing [b]as it's been translated more than we'd like it to have been and we don't have a solid grasp of what Jesus really meant[/b], we look to other places in the bible where the word has been used. Jesus had a thorough knowledge of the OT. He throws words at us that draw a plethora of meaning from the OT which give us really good insight as to exactly what he meant when he spoke. [b]Back then many people knew what he meant[/b], but our cultures are so far apart we couldn't even grasp many things in the NT without scholarly instruction.[/quote]

You just provided the arguments for what I said on the previous page. That is, the universal interpretation of the church that Peter was the rock. I can provide the specific quotations if you want but this is a serious issue for your point. If there was discussion or even doubt it would not have been universal. If your view had any validity to it then show me someone in the patristic period who thinks that way. Like you said, people back then knew what he meant.

[quote]These are verses from the bible that I believe is the proper way of biblical interpretation. All of my bib. stu. professors have more than this one basis for showing the true meaning of this text. This is just one that i'll argue due to my lack of knowledge.[/quote]

Where did you go to school? Biblical criticism and schools of exegetical thought are constantly changing and produce nothing more than pluralism that is not the Christian message. For a guru and his school of thought to change their interpretation with every generation does not provide a proper understanding of the scripture or the Christian metaphysic.


[quote]First of all, this couldn't be any more false if your mothers life depended on it. The book of matthew was not written in Aramaic. Yes, Jesus spoke aramaic, but the gospels were written a while after Jesus' time. It was passed down by oral tradition, I'm sure your aware of this..you see where I'm going with this.[/quote]

With your biblical studies I am sure you know the Male/feminine issue of the greek word for Rock right?

[quote]This right here is where your mixing nonsense with rhetoric to make what you're conveying much more powerful. Let's keep this forum free of powerful but senseless words.[/quote]

He just quoted the passage. No power trip to be seen.

[quote]These are a list of verses from the bible that use the word "ROCK" in other contexts so one can derive an absolute meaning. Why do we do this? simply because one cannot take a guess. The variant is clearly undetermined. It can only be determined by looking how it is used through out the bible. This is a scholarly tool. Fail to use it. Fail to understand the bible.[/quote]

The word rock is used in different ways. Whats your point? The idea that the word is used in different ways does not discredit the meaning of the passage. Look at it in context. Jesus calls peter rock, he cites what the rock will do. Sounds like Jesus did a good job explaining it. How would you have recommended he do it different in order for you to understand? The issue of variable text meanings does not hurt a catholic because we have the universal teaching of the church on this subject. But a protestant using the scripture only is bound to their own interpretation skills or whatever guru they have decided to follow.

[quote]So, what do you make of this?[/quote]

You should buy Strong's concordance and not use a website because it is a better tool.

If you are debating exegesis it will come down to my view vs your view. it is a stand still because neither of us has authority to interpret scripture on its own. The smarter one of us will win. But when we look at the teaching of the Church in this matter she has always declared that peter is that rock. So either you are wrong, or the entire church and all her fathers have been wrong and you are finally providing light.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Revprodeji

[Socrates]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1387570' date='Sep 17 2007, 09:48 PM']"The first thing to do when looking at scripture is to look at the immediate context, not to pull out other passages in the Bible not directly related to claim the word refers to something other than what it obviously refers to in the sentence. A word has no meaning out of context."

This couldn't be any more valid than presented here. But what Socrates fails to mention is that this word is very much in question. I'll show you why.

I'm going to quote my friend socrates here because i know that these are going to be your next argument.

"The "Petra/Petros" argument is bogus, as first of all, Christ would have originally spoken Aramaic to Peter, not Greek. There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic - Kepha. The name "Petros" was given when translated into Greek, because "petra" is a feminine noun in Greek, and was changed to the masculine "Petros" to be a man's name. The word means the same thing."

First of all, this couldn't be any more false if your mothers life depended on it. The book of matthew was not written in Aramaic. Yes, Jesus spoke aramaic, but the gospels were written a while after Jesus' time. It was passed down by oral tradition, i'm sure your aware of this..you see where i'm going with this.[/quote]
Yes, we know Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek, but the point was that [b]Jesus Christ[/b] spoke Aramaic.
(And some scholars believe the Greek Matthew was translated from an Aramaic original.)
Christ would have used the same word in Aramaic: "Thou art [i][b]Kepha[/b][/i], and upon this [i][b]kepha[/b][/i] I will build my Church."
The only reason the word is different in Greek is because Petros is the masculine version of Petra (to be used as a man's name).

[quote]I will quote Soc again because this is your next line of reason:

"This statement of Christ is followed immediately by the following solemn declaration to Peter: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)
Christ gives Peter the authority to bind and loose on Heaven on Earth. It is nonsensical to say that Christ is not referring to Peter here."

This right here is where your mixing nonsense with rhetoric to make what you're conveying much more powerful. Let's keep this forum free of powerful but senseless words.[/quote]
Let's keep this forum free of senseless (and weak) insults.
I was quoting the words of Christ in the Gospel here. Christ was not speaking nonsense.
If Christ was not talking to Peter, who is He talking to??
And what is the point of Christ naming Simon "Rock," if the rock Christ speaks of has nothing to do with Peter?

Jesus Christ does not speak idly.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Socrates

[Deo Iuvente]

Chris,You're still arguing Non Sequitur.
Giving us masses of bible verses using the word 'Rock" In various contexts do not disprove that peter is the rock
No matter how you look at it Jesus Still says Peter=Rock.
Showing us verse that say that Christ Is the rock does not disprove our claim.Twice there,you employed [i]Dicto Simpliciter [/i] without showing what fallacies.
[quote]So if Jesus meant "small stone" then Christ was the bottom stone, and peter was just one that goes on top of that. [b]Which would imply that Peter was not the only foundation.[/b][/quote]
BINGO!
That's what I've been trying to prove.There is not One Singular Foundation.
I'm sure by now,that someone may have mentioned Isaiah 22:20 to you.
Isa. 22:20-here we have dynastic succession (Read:'apostolic succession')
Isa. 22:19-Shebna has an office.and office has successors who share the authority of his predecessors.
Isa. 22:21 -Eliakin is called "Father",or 'Papa' of his people.
Isa. 22:22-Here we have a clear parallel between Matthew and Isaiah.Considering that the apostles would have known these passages well,it's considerable that upon hearing Jesus' words they would have connected them.

[Dismas]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1387162' date='Sep 17 2007, 02:43 PM']I think that's a good way of putting it, with co-dependency, that is.[/quote]
Co-dependency - dependent with the other's dependency.

Perhaps Interdependency would work.