The Passion of the Christ

[wms]

PS. I'm a Christian. I belong to the universal Church founded by Jesus and built on Peter whom He designated the rock that would become the foundation of His Church, and whose successor is a Polish man that lives in Italy in the city of Rome. With all its human failings, I respectfully submit that's way ahead of Jerry Falwell or the 700 Club.

Matt 16
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There are two references to rock mentioned here. First, Peter means stone and is the male tense, in reference to a builder, and is in a different context in the original than the Rock which the church is built upon. That Rock is in the female tense, and refers to the truth that Peter spoke in verse 16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." If Peter, or any man other than Christ, were the rock upon which the church was built, Then it would not be a church in which Christ is the center, Matt 18:20.

I know of no record of Peter being a Bishop of Rome, or Pope. Bishop Irenaeus in 178 AD listed the first 12, and Peter was not one of them. According to him Linus was the first, long after Peter was gone. And most importantly, the Bible does not mention Peter as such. The claims of Peter as the first Pope were later in revised church history.

In fact there is no institutional church teaching in the Bible that would ordain an organized religion other than Judaism; Catholic, Protestent or otherwise. There is simply the way Christians are to gather to remember and serve the Lord Jesus. So if Peter were a Pope, it would be contrary to the church teachings given in the Bible by those who taught them, including himself.

The first mention of church gathering is in Acts 2:
41 Then they that gladly received his word (the Gospel) were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them(received into the local church or eklesia in the greek) about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine(church teachings) and fellowship, and in breaking of bread (worship), and in prayers.

Peter was there preaching, but with the same authority as any apostle, and by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning Falwell and the 700 club, I agree completely.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

Surplus1: Thank you for so elequently conveying my feelings as well. For some reason, certain posters feel the need to make snide comments or little jabs to people of other religions. I've learned to mostly ignore them, because (as you found out) they will insist on trying to "save" you from your heathen religion.



18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Ironic, isn't it, that Catholics took this passage in the Bible literally. St Peter's Basilica is literally built on Peter's grave.


There are two references to rock mentioned here. First, Peter means stone and is the male tense, in reference to a builder, and is in a different context in the original than the Rock which the church is built upon. That Rock is in the female tense, and refers to the truth that Peter spoke in verse 16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." If Peter, or any man other than Christ, were the rock upon which the church was built, Then it would not be a church in which Christ is the center, Matt 18:20.


A rather old and tired "modern interpretation", used to justify Catholic bashing. Here is a partial reprint of an article which explains the actual meaning:


By Gary Hoge


In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "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 disciple to whom Jesus addressed this statement was named Simon. But Jesus changed his name to Peter (Greek, Petros), which means "rock." The Reformers claimed that because the usual Greek word for rock, petra, is slightly different from Petros, Jesus must have been contrasting Peter with the rock. They claimed that it was really Peter's statement that Jesus was the Christ that was the "rock" upon which Jesus would build His Church.

But Jesus spoke to His disciples in Aramaic, not Greek, and in Aramaic, the same word, Kepha, would have appeared in both places in the sentence. Therefore, most modern Protestant scholars have abandoned the Reformers' argument and they now agree with the Catholic Church that Peter was the rock to which Jesus referred. For example, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes,


The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.[1]

Also, David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote,


It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.[2]

For a complete exegesis of Matthew 16:18, as well as the testimony of the early Christians, see my paper, "Is Peter the Rock?"




End Notes


Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.


David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261.

 

[wms]

I didn't intend to bash Catholicism or any other religion. I'm only saying there is no teaching in the Bible for any "christian religion". There is nothing in the Bible which teaches how to be a good Catholic, a good Baptist, a good Methodist, etc. There is only teaching about how to gather simply as Christians around the person of Christ. What has happened to the Christian church is not limited to any single religion, but to any religion that has displaced Jesus Christ from the center.

There are many arguments on the interpretions of Matt 16 as well as many other verses. The fact is, the best argument for or against the interpretation of a verse is other scripture, and there is no other scripture supporting a single supreme figure in the whole Church or even the local church other than Jesus Himself.

Here are some references on various church teachings.
Matt 18:15-20, Acts 2:41&42, Acts 20:28, Corr 11:3-12, 1 Corr 14: 34&35, 1 Corr 16:1, 1 Tim 3; and there are many others addressing virtually every aspect of the church. Biblical principles should be used when evaluating a church, not the opinions or teaching of men.

Peter himself in 1 Pet 5 addresses himself as a fellow elder, not above the other elders of the local gathering. There is no teaching in the Bible for a church government to rule over the individual churches. The relationship between the early churches was autonomous. And again in 1 pet 2 he says that all believers are of a royal priesthood and a holy priesthood. This because as believers we have direct access to God through the only High Priest, Jesus Christ alone, Heb 5:9&10, and through no other;
1 Timothy 2:5, " For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;".

 

[TonyC]

I can't or rather won't deal with folks who are non-Jews but set themselves up as experts on Judaism or non-Catholics who obviously know next to nothing about Catholicism, yet can tell everyone what we believe or don't believe. I'm not going to "convert" them and they're not going to "convert" me.

Essentially, you're saying that you refuse to discuss the subject with anybody but a Catholic? How convenient. While I cannot claim to be an expert on Catholicism, I can read, and I, like everyone else, have access to WWW.Catholic.com where I can read the teachings of the Catholic church. So, while it may be convenient for you to dismiss what I say because you can accuse me of knowing "next to nothing about Catholicism," the accusation is hollow. According to the Catholic church website, the congregant is expected to believe as the local congregation, the local congregation is expected to believe as the worldwide organization, and bishops have authority to make decisions that congregants are expected to obey. The Pope has the authority to make decisions that must be obeyed by all, and his decisions are infallible.

Find this concept in the Bible - - pick your version - - and we can have a discussion. As long as you're defending the Catholic church, I assume it is appropriate to compare the Catholic church to the Bible.

If you tell me that you don't agree with all I've just stated about the Catholic church that I've just cited, then you're only confirming what I've stated are problems with the Catholic faith. If you can't agree with everything the Catholic church teaches, including submission to bishops who molest children, then please tell us why.

I'm a Catholic and I intend to remain a Catholic. No amount of criticism or "thumping" or quotations from the NIV, NASV, NWT, NKJV, RSV or the "Book of Mormon" (whatever that's supposed to be) are going to change my faith. In that respect, I am just like TWA Dude. You all can preach till the cows come home. Whenever you figure out what the differences are between your more than 1000 denominations and cults, then we can talk. Until then, we really don't have much to say to each other that won't result in a quarrel.

Then I'm sure you won't feel threatened by the truth. As long as you feel like you're better than your neighbors, there's no need to do any better yourself, right? As long as they've got it "wrong" it's OK for you to be less wrong? That's what it sounds like you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It also sounds like you're claiming to be an expert on Protestant denominations and cults. Assuming you hold yourself to the same standard you require of others (reference "folks who are non-Jews but set themselves up as experts on Judaism or non-Catholics who obviously know next to nothing about Catholicism" comment above) you must know quite a bit about modern religions. Or is it different in this case? Is there some bit of truth (or non-truth) a "non-expert" can see that makes it possible to discuss the topic with legitimacy?

Let me put it more bluntly - - does one have to be an expert on the Catholic church to know that a priest raping young boys is wrong? Or does one have to graduate catechism school before he can make that judgment?

Coming from a Catholic I doubt you would find my examples relevant. I suggest instead that you consult the views of one group of Protestants vs. other groups of Protestants.

What I find irrelevant to the defense of the Catholic church is an attack of a Protestant denomination. I can join you in criticizing certain translations of the Bible that introduce doctrinal bias that is not contained in the original texts. That doesn't make the Catholic church correct. Attacking a Protestant denomination is NOT a defense of the Catholic church.

So please, show me in the Bible where the organization of the Catholic church is laid out, by command or example. Pick your version.

(Or go to www.catholic.com where they've laid out several strategies for you to use when talking to that group called “Bible Christians.”)

Basically, that's why I decided that it would be of no benefit to anyone for me to participate directly in the discussion. I would probably offend someone or wind up being offended myself. I wouldn't mind that if I thought it would make things better, but I doubt that it would.

While I can't speak for anyone else, I am not offended by anyone's earnest quest for truth. I'm also not offended when someone gives up on trying to find the truth, and just defers the discovery until the day it will be too late. I'm disappointed, and bothered, but not offended.

PS. I'm a Christian. I belong to the universal Church founded by Jesus and built on Peter whom He designated the rock that would become the foundation of His Church, and whose successor is a Polish man that lives in Italy in the city of Rome. With all its human failings, I respectfully submit that's way ahead of Jerry Falwell or the 700 Club.

Again, pointing fingers at a Protestant denomination does not bolster the credibility of the Catholic church. Christ's church is built upon the confession that Jesus is Christ - - not just a good man or a prophet, as the Jews or Muslims might think. That rock, or foundation, is oft confused with the person Peter, who was married, and who was never a Pope. True, the Catholic church grew out of that church founded by Jesus, but it has deviated far beyond the Biblical version of the church. Friday mass, confession to a priest, worship of Mary, repeating "Hail Mary"s and "Our Fathers" are more examples of Catholic practices that are not commanded or shown by example in the Bible. Any version.

 

[petergibbins]

I'm not claiming to be an expert on religion or faith. I am a recently saved Christian, to me it doesn't matter what Chrisitan denomination it is. So to me all this debate on Religion is worthless. All we are doing is allowing Satan to control our thoughts and allowing him to seperate us as Christians. It doesn't matter what religion we choose to accept. As long as we have faith in God and accept Jesus as our savior. God created us with different personality traits and thats the reason for so many Christian religions, we simply choose the one that fits our personality. Sometimes we let that get in the way of the fundamental facts that everyone else is our brother and we are supposed to love one another as Christ loves us. I have friends from many christian religions, and the most important thing to me is whether or not they have accpeted Jesus in their hearts and are living a life that serves God. Simply put a debate on what Christian religion is correct is like arguing over what rock band is the greatest. Some will say its Led Zepplin, others may say Aerosmith. It doesn't matter, the fact that we both like music should unite us. When we quarrel with each other we scare away other non-believers, and thats exactly the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to show them the love we have for one another as Christians and bring them to God.
Another thing, whatever Bible you like so be it. Its a Bible.

Here's a few verses from Ephesians 2 starting at 19 ending with 22:

consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are bieng built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

 

[TurboS7]

You are ever so right my friend, keep the faith. Dave

 

[wms]

I'm not claiming to be an expert on religion or faith. I am a recently saved Christian, to me it doesn't matter what Chrisitan denomination it is.

To me what religion a person chooses is their business, but I'm compelled to refer to the Bible when the discussion comes up. But to God it does matter, or there would not be so much emphasis on church truths in the NT. Were it left up to me I probably wouldn't care where I went as long as I felt good. But when I got saved I looked to the Word of God to see if there was any guidance for churches, and there is plenty. Then I chose a place to gather with other Christians with the desire to meet the same way. Not everyone does that and that's ok with me.

The reference you give from Ephesians is to the church in Ephesus, a group of believers meeting in the pattern given in the NT by the apostles doctrine, Acts 2:42, not according to their own methods. Later false teachers crept in and Paul left Timothy to teach and encourage and later wrote 1 & 2 Timothy addressing the problems of the false teaching they received and how to fix it. Later in Rev 2, you see that the efforts paid off by God's own commendation of their faithfulness as a church.

We as believers are to love each other as such, no matter what the denomination, but there are plenty of warnings about straying from the doctrine of the local church, 1 Tim 1. Our methods of practice shouldn't separate us as Christians, but we are to avoid worshipping with those that don't stick to teaching biblical church doctrine.

 

[Super 80]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a sin to cause division among brothers. As much as I think the Jesus and the Apostles stated plainly (and literally) the criteria for admission to Heaven, it means that people of every religious denomination of man will be included just as Heaven will be composed of every nation, tribe, people, and language.

In regards to the esteemed writings of Gary Hoge and David Hill I'd like to add this observation:

Caesarea Philippi had a spring at the base of a rocky cliff face that fed into the Jordan River. In this rock wall there were recesses carved out and idols of Roman mythology adorning them. Jesus has brought the Disciples to this pagan center in their last circuit of the Holy Land together on their way to Jerusalem for Christ's crucifixion. In that setting, we can see a double entendre where Jesus is contrasting the pagan practices to the New Covenant He makes. Instead of having faith based on idols, Christian faith would be on Christ. Compared to the rock wall, Peter’s faith was the rock Jesus would build His Church upon. The Gospel account makes the distinction of calling Simon; Petros, the masculine, but what He will build the Church on is Petra, the feminine. The Bible uses marriage as an analogy in describing the Church, so this distinction in the Greek provides an insight to applicability of what the rock is in conveying the meaning behind Jesus' words in the Aramaic as understood by the Apostles -guided by the Holy Spirit- in conveying those Words of Jesus.

So while I understand man's religion to be a study of God's word, literally theology or God-study, I allow that man being less than perfect and sinful can get it wrong. Thus while there may be flaws in any particular religion being a compilation of theology which can itself be flawed (and some divisions of religion within Christianity more so than others) it is not necessary for me to correct what I perceive as the weaknesses in each one.

As long as we all agree on the Salvation afforded in Christ Jesus and act righteously from and in that faith, then matters of division between denominations among Christians are secondary.

 

[Timebuilder]

Talk about providence.

I was just going to google a ticket for the Passion, and here is this thread, once again, at the top.

I'll let you know what I think, if I can put it into words.



Oh, one interesting twist this week. I've been thinking about having another pilot job. I found myself wondering if I would ever be a pilot again.

I came very close to that this week. I was asked to do a "Pilate" job. Pontius Pilate, that is, for a presentation at Easter. I will record 11 minutes of a script where Pilate muses over what he has just done.

I don't yet have a server set up where I can share it with interested posters, though.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

I agree with some of it...

Super80: I agree with some of what you wrote, specifically:

"As long as we all agree on the Salvation afforded in Christ Jesus and act righteously from and in that faith, then matters of division between denominations among Christians are secondary."


However:

"Caesarea Philippi had a spring at the base of a rocky cliff face that fed into the Jordan River. In this rock wall there were recesses carved out and idols of Roman mythology adorning them. Jesus has brought the Disciples to this pagan center in their last circuit of the Holy Land together on their way to Jerusalem for Christ's crucifixion. In that setting, we can see a double entendre where Jesus is contrasting the pagan practices to the New Covenant He makes. Instead of having faith based on idols, Christian faith would be on Christ. Compared to the rock wall, Peter’s faith was the rock Jesus would build His Church upon. The Gospel account makes the distinction of calling Simon; Petros, the masculine, but what He will build the Church on is Petra, the feminine. The Bible uses marriage as an analogy in describing the Church, so this distinction in the Greek provides an insight to applicability of what the rock is in conveying the meaning behind Jesus' words in the Aramaic as understood by the Apostles -guided by the Holy Spirit- in conveying those Words of Jesus."

I can't agree with this. I have included some of the comments on this subject from Protestant Bible scholars. These are not Catholic priests conveying their opinion, or anyone you might assume would be biased towards the Catholic interpretation:


William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Pe**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)


John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar


The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author


Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Pe**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)


J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary


By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary


Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England


On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)