Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray

    Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray



    Biblical scholar and Holy Land pilgrimage leader Steve Ray delves into the Jewish roots of the papacy, namely “the keys”, “the rock”, and “the chair”. Ray, a former Baptist, draws from his trips to the Holy Land to bring to life the commissioning of Peter as the first pope using vivid historical and contextual highlights.

    Find more Deep in History talks on the topic of the History of Authority here: https://chnetwork.org/deep-in-history-home/

  • #2
    Steve Ray is a popular Catholic author and host on television and radio. After being Protestants for 39 years and involved with various Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant churches, Steve Ray and his wife, Janet, converted to the Catholic Church on Pentecost Sunday, 1994. Steve’s first book, Crossing The Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historic Church details his intellectual and spiritual journey into Catholicism. He has also written Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in the Scriptures and Early Church, St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary, A Papacy Learning Guide and The Catholic Faith for Beginners: A Study of the Creeds. Steve and his wife are certified guides to the Holy Land, lead pilgrimages throughout the Israel and other biblical lands, and have produced the Holy Land DVD series, The Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation from Abraham to Augustine. His website is www.CatholicConvert.com.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post
      Steve Ray is a popular Catholic author and host on television and radio. After being Protestants for 39 years and involved with various Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant churches, Steve Ray and his wife, Janet, converted to the Catholic Church on Pentecost Sunday, 1994. Steve’s first book, Crossing The Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historic Church details his intellectual and spiritual journey into Catholicism. He has also written Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in the Scriptures and Early Church, St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary, A Papacy Learning Guide and The Catholic Faith for Beginners: A Study of the Creeds. Steve and his wife are certified guides to the Holy Land, lead pilgrimages throughout the Israel and other biblical lands, and have produced the Holy Land DVD series, The Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation from Abraham to Augustine. His website is www.CatholicConvert.com.
      That's too bad.
      He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

      Jim Elliot

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post

        That's too bad.
        I just whooped the snot out of your dumb post in another thread. Don't make me do it twice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Scott Hahn explains Papal Infallibility

          Dr. Scott Hahn answers a caller who explains that papal infallibility is a roadblock to his conversion.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post

            I just whooped the snot out of your dumb post in another thread. Don't make me do it twice.
            Give it your best shot rookie. Answer me on the other thread.
            He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

            Jim Elliot

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
              Give it your best shot rookie
              I'll bet that's what the Pharisees said to Jesus, you Biblical dope.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post

                I'll bet that's what the Pharisees said to Jesus, you Biblical dope.
                All you have is insults, no answers.
                He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

                Jim Elliot

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post

                  All you have is insults, no answers.
                  I have answers. You never asked a question.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post
                    Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray
                    Let us look at the following question asked by the Lord Jesus and the answer given by Peter:

                    "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. 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" (Mt.16:15-18).


                    This confession of Peter, that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is the "rock" upon which the Jewish church was to be built. Alfred Edersheim explains the meaning of the "rock" here:

                    "Perhaps it might be expressed in this somewhat clumsy paraphrase: 'Thou art Peter (Petros)--a Stone or Rock--and upon this Petra--the Rock, the Petrine--will I found My Church...so Christ promised that He would build His Church on the Petrine in Peter--on his faith and confession."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      Let us look at the following question asked by the Lord Jesus and the answer given by Peter:

                      Yes, let's do that:

                      QUOTE:
                      source - https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-the-rock


                      Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. Sure, I had a Bible, but I didn’t turn to it much; so I had little to say about the Bible when missionaries cornered me. I didn’t know to which verses I should refer when explaining the Catholic position.

                      For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.

                      Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.

                      When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-day Adventist. He asked if he could “share” with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.

                      He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position. Not much to say

                      Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.

                      Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.”

                      “Hold it right there!” I said. “I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope.” I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.

                      I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.

                      “I understand your thinking,” he said, “but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek.”

                      “Is that so?” I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.

                      “Yes,” he said. “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble.”

                      In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

                      “You Catholics,” the missionary continued, “because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it.”

                      “Well,” I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, “I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek.” He smiled some more and nodded. “But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic.”

                      “The what?” he asked.

                      “The Aramaic,” I said. “As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”

                      “I thought Greek was.”

                      “No,” I answered. “Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

                      “I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.” Aramaic in the New Testament

                      I continued: “We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

                      “What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

                      “And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

                      “When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

                      For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. Then it occurred to him.

                      “Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”

                      “Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

                      “You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

                      “I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.

                      “Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ Jesus is giving Peter a threefold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority.

                      “To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.”

                      I stopped and smiled. The missionary smiled back uncomfortably, but said nothing. Then he looked at his watch, noticed how time had flown, and excused himself. I never saw him again.

                      So what came of this encounter? Two things—one for me, one for him.

                      I began to develop a sense of confidence. I began to see that I could defend my faith if I engaged in a little homework. The more homework, the better the defense.

                      I realized that any literate Catholic—including you—could do the same. You don’t have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you can’t come up with an answer to a pointed question.

                      Once you develop a sense of confidence, you can say to yourself, “I may not know the answer to that, but I know I could find the answer if I hit the books. The answer is there, if only I spend the time to look for it.”

                      And what about the missionary? Did he go away with anything? I think so. I think he went away with a doubt regarding his understanding (or lack of understanding) of Catholics and the Catholic faith. I hope his doubt has since matured into a sense that maybe, just maybe, Catholics have something to say on behalf of their religion and that he should look more carefully into the Faith he once so confidently opposed.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The problem with those who follow the teaching of the church at Rome is the fact that they just flat out refuse to believe what the Savior Himself said about how people are saved. What the Lord Jesus said here is either true or false and those who follow Rome must say that it is false:

                        "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath eternal life" (Jn.6:47).


                        Those who follow Rome have been tricked into thinking that believing the gospel is not enough to be saved despite the following words written by Paul:

                        "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          The problem with those who follow the teaching of the church at Rome is the fact that they just flat out refuse to believe what the Savior Himself said about how people are saved

                          You know, you will never advance your cause (whatever that is) by lying.

                          Salvation is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The Papacy: God’s Gift to the Church
                            by James Akin
                            http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church

                            Selected pieces

                            I want to begin by telling you a story. It is the story of a good and wise king who lived 3,000 years ago in the middle east. Although this king sometimes made mistakes–including serious ones, for which he was chastised–he still was a devout and pious king whom the Bible describes as a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14) (CUT)

                            (MORE) He appointed one particular minister who would serve as the chief steward of his house, rather like the President today has the White House Chief of Staff. This minister, who was accountable to King David alone, had the task of settling quarrels, keeping ministers in line, and in general keeping the house together and running smoothly.

                            When the king was away, this meant that the chief steward or chamberlain of the house was in charge. He was the head of the household when the king was away, and was second in command when the king was present
                            (CUT)

                            (MORE) To symbolize his authority, the chamberlain had a special key which he carried in a pouch on his shoulder. This key symbolized the difference between him and the lesser ministers her oversaw. Other ministers could bind and loose–permit and prohibit activity in the household–but the chief steward or chamberlain could bind and lose in the greatest way, so what no one could undo his judgments. No one, except the king himself (CUT)

                            (MORE) Now why are those important lessons for us? Because today, for us, there is also a chamberlain for the people of God. When the time came for the Messiah to appear–great David’s Greater Son, the one who fulfilled God’s covenant with David, who himself is the new and perfect David–he did something very similar in setting up his kingdom.

                            The new kingdom would not be a merely national enterprise, like the old kingdom, but an international one which would include people of many nations. This made it an even bigger organization, which would need an even greater organizational structure. And so, to govern the members of his household, the New David, like the First David, appointed ministers. We call them apostles and bishops and priests and deacons, but that is who they are–Christ’s ministers, who oversee his household.

                            And as before, whenever you have a bunch of ministers, there are going to be conflicts that need to be settled, and for that you need a central authority–a chief minister who has charge over the others. If you don’t have a central authority to settle disputes, you will have chaos and the household will disintegrate into multiple competing sects. So when Jesus, the Son of David, went about setting up his kingdom and appointing its first ministers, he wisely set up a chief minister.

                            From the very beginning of his interaction with this man whom he would appoint, Jesus marked him specially, giving him a special, personal name. He did this in John 1:42, where we read that Andrew:

                            “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).”

                            So when Jesus met the man that he would make his chief steward–a man known as Simon bar-Jonah or Simon, the son of John–he have him a new name to specially mark him–the Aramaic word “Cephas” or, more properly, “Kepha,” which was later translated as “Peter” when the Church began to move into Gentile, Greek-speaking circles.

                            This new name was very significant since this was not an ordinary name. People at this time were not named “Kepha.” The word just means “Rock,” and it probably sounded almost as strange to their ears to give someone the nickname “Rock” we it would to ours. It would have sounded strange to Peter’s ears, and he would naturally wonder, “I just met this man. Why does he say I’m going to be called ‘Rock’ from now on? What does he have in store for me?”

                            Well, Peter would eventually find out. As Jesus gathered a group of disciples around him, Peter became their natural, de facto leader, and eventually Jesus chose to formalize this relationship, making Peter the official leader of the disciples. We read of that in Matthew 16, in the famous passage where Christ asks the disciples who people say he is. They indicate that the people aren’t sure and give various guesses at the identity of Christ. Then Jesus asks them who they–the disciples–think he is, and Peter answers correctly: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” prompting Jesus to reply:

                            “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17-19)
                            (CUT)


                            Complete article, an important read - http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The 'rock' that Jesus was describing, as Jerry said: is revelation knowledge. We know that Jesus is The Christ, because The Holy Spirit has revealed that to us on the inside. Without His revealing that to us we would be lost, just like the heathen. Jesus builds His Kingdom upon revelation knowledge; those of us who believe have revelation of Who He is by having it revealed to us by God, that 'rock' inside of us is what His Body is built upon, layer by layer.
                              "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

                              If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X