This was very interesting! I'd had no idea this point was ever debated. When I was learning it as a kid (I went to Catholic school), they made a point of highlighting the fact that Peter means "rock" and so it meant that Jesus was building His Church with Peter as the foundation and the head.
I am 38. It has been a four year journey from deep in the protestant world, but I am being confirmed and joining the Holy Catholic Church that Christ Himself founded on all saints day in less than two weeks from now. Matt, there are many people I can thank for my conversion and intend on doing so. You and your work has not been insignificant. I can't find any way to contact you via mail, or email to do so. I can't possibly write all I want to in this comment thread I am typing on my phone. Thank you, brother. Than you!
If the rapture occurs within the next two weeks and you find yourself left behind, the “messiah” revealed afterwards is the antichrist and you’re in the 7 year Tribulation
Hi Matt. Welcome to Ohio!! I usually am not a "commenter" but ever since I found your video debating against the Cameron with the fancy hair I wondered if he was on the same level theologically as my sister who converted to protestantism. So I asked her to look at his channel. She did and said they, (her and her husband) are unsure of him and usually follow John Piper and R.C. Sproul. I really admire the way you have debated with our protestant brothers. Your approach helps me learn how to be genuine. I know John Piper has a podcast. Would you ever consider a debate with one or both of those guys?
This problem doesn't exist in Greek or in Latin languages. Petra is a femenine word, so Jesus won't give Peter a femenine name, he's a guy after all. So Jesus calls him Petrus, which is masculine.
You are a rock Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, why not say upon you I will build my church since he’s addressing Peter, doesn’t make sense, but upon this foundation, the foundation that Jesus is the Christ makes perfect sense, the savior of the world
An interesting parallel I learned about in a book by Scott Han on the Scriptures was that the temple built by Solomon was built on a very large rock and at the time it was said that the rock was so big that it was the "gate to the underworld." Jesus told Peter that he is the rock on which he will build his church and the gate of Hades will not prevail against it.
Jesus did not tell Peter that, it is an invention of the Catholic Church to claim supremacy over all believers. God refers to Himself as the Rock many times in the Bible. All ignored by these men who push the Catholic agenda. Read the Bible yourself. "Build your house upon the Rock", do you really think Jesus meant "build your house on man". The Catholic Church wants you to believe this because the Pope's are only sinful fallible MEN like the rest of us, they elevate THEMSELVES to be God on earth.
Caesarea Phillipi where Jesus said this has a massive cliff face that was full of idols, which sat on a cavern called 'the Gates of Hades. You can google for the images.
My biggest personal issue with this is how the Scriptures are silent. They never say "and Peter, Cephas, became the head, universal bishop over the entire Church on earth at Rome as instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ. And those he laid his hands upon became his successive leaders"...or something to that effect. When the NT was penned the Church at Rome was barely a blip on the radar. It was still in its infancy compared to all the other Churches already established by one of the twelve other Apostles. Really, the first Church "founded" by Peter himself was Antioch I believe...
you'll see in bishop lists of Rome that the church of Rome was founded by Peter & Paul. I've come across a bunch of Catholic scholars who don't believe this. Rome's early prominence is quite simple. It was because it was the capital city. That's why the claims for the papacy only took root in the Western Roman Empire. There were no other really big cities to counterbalance the growing aspirations of the Roman bishop, unlike in the East.
@@TheCrusaderPub I get all those passages. I hear ya. I'm born and raised RC. I can see the argument. But I'm more referring to the lack of evidence for the office of the "universal papacy" over all other Churches for all time. The weird lack of information on Peter supposedly even in Rome to begin with. We need Tradition to tell us all of this. Revelation/Apocalypse doesn't even use the Church at Rome as one of it's examples....they're all other Churches....more weirdness. And the one Church that sounds the closest described as Rome is....the W of Babylon....😳 Just saying.
@@TheCrusaderPub I could create a long list of Scriptures that establish the preeminence of Paul. But only if I mangle Scriptures to fit a predetermined conclusion like Catholics by using their arguments.
Why not both? Jesus is still the rock. The Church and proper faith are called rock. The person of Peter is still Rock, and that based on the fact he is deified and graced by Christ as Rock, which comes from Christ. Just as Christ is the Light, and we are lights of the world. The prime Rock who is not eternal is Peter, from whom we receive our example, but Peter gets his Rock-ness from Christ who is the eternal Rock of our faith and salvation. I think the mistake is both Protestants and Catholics seem to try to exclude one another’s arguments. But I see that both are correct.
Caesarea Phillipi where Jesus said this has a massive cliff face that was full of idols, which sat on a cavern called 'the Gates of Hades. You can google for the images.
In portuguese (my mother language) it says "Tu és Pedro (Peter) e sobre esta pedra (rock) edificarei a minha Igreja" Pedro = masculine Pedra = feminine So it does makes sense this in latin derived languages
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” Matthew 16:13-15 KJV “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 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 16:16-17 KJV 1. Jesus: who do men say that I am 2. Disciples: x,y,z 3. Jesus: whom do you say that I am 4. Peter: thou art the Christ, the son of the living God 5. Jesus: Correct and upon this foundation (rock) I will build the church The passage has nothing to do with Peter, the foundation that Jesus built his church was upon the fact that he is the messiah, the savior of the world Is Christianity founded upon Peter or upon Jesus the messiah? The answer is obvious
New sub here! Thank you so much for this! This is the exact thing I have been puzzling over all week. I had almost come to the conclusion that the rock had to be Peter's confession, not Peter. You gave me more to ponder, thanks! (I'm searching for truth and really want Catholicism to be the answer. But I'm trying not to jump into anything too fast. Because I have made that mistake before)
What about Ephesians 2:20?. Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. So, Christ is the Rock, the apostles (not just Peter) and the prophets are anchored to the Cornerstone.
All of the above. Jesus, Peter’s confession and Peter himself are what constitute the “rock”. So, not Jesus alone. Not Peter alone. Not the confession alone. All of the above. Anyone who understands building structures(as Jesus does) knows that a foundation is more than just one element. And this does not weaken or threaten the primacy of Peter either. We know that Jesus is the spiritual rock(St Paul), which makes Peter the memorial of Jesus upon the earth, upon which is written “Jesus, the Christ, Son of the Living God.”
Unless I missed it, Mr. Sonna did not mention all of the Old and New Testament verses where Jesus is described as the rock, foundation and cornerstone. It is the Rock, Christ, that is the means and anchor of salvation. Peter`s declaration regarding who Jesus is, is the very essence of this truth. Christ is the foundation of our faith. Peter and the apostles, as teachers of the Word, build upon this foundation but Christ is the meaning, promise, hope and Rock of our faith.
A rock is something used many times in scripture. Just like father is a word used to describe God the Father, or father Abraham, or Paul/John describing themselves or others as fathers in faith. The problem is Jesus specifically calls Simon a rock and then says on THIS rock He will build His Church. Direct context negates other uses of the term rock, just as if I were to point out a verse that says “Father, who art in heaven” I would clearly not be speaking about the father Abraham nor the fathers being written to in 1 John.
He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same: Augustine- "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
The two opinions aren't mutually exclusive and Augustine does not deny the possibility of Peter's person being referred to. Augustine also did not know Greek, but only knew Latin, so he lacked the insight of the Greek language which makes is *undeniable* that Peter's person is being referenced.
@@catholickirby Its obviously deniable as a great many deny that the Verse is refering to Peter. In fact the greek actually cuts against your interpretation and i have had Roman Catholics admit this and appeal to Aramaic.
@@Adam-ue2ig The only way the Greek could be construed as cutting against the *person* of Peter being the rock is the gendering of the language, petros to petra, but this is addressed in this video, and is not at all problematic. Still, appealing to Aramaic shows how the same idea expressed in words Jesus would have actually spoken becomes even more clear, but this does not mean the Greek has to be abandoned, for both the pattern - Peter says "thou art the Christ" to Jesus, establishing His identity, and Jesus does the same, "thou art Peter", establishing his identity - and also the use of the Greek word for "this same", that is, "this same rock [just referred to]", namely, Peter, clearly establish that Peter's person is the rock. And discussions about possible meanings, such as Augustine's, are not the same as *denying* that the verse refers to what it refers to. Those with a knowledge of Greek (which not all Fathers had) cannot deny the clear meaning.
The rock is Christ, within Peter and everyone who is born again. Peter explains this in his first epistle. The revealing by the Father to Peter, was Christs Spirit. 1 John 5:1. The reason why the renaming, is due to the fact Peter was the first of many. Peter himself does not agree with the RCC interpretation when reading his own epistles. Peter, along with the other apostles, were the foundation, with Peter simply being the oldest.
I've heard before that Jesus was just giving the name Peter as a nickname, like "sons of thunder". Is anyone able to help me make a clear distinction between the two so that I can explain with clarity and confidence that St. Peter IS the rock?
Not an answer, but a tidbit that may be worth investigating regarding this topic: There is a city which was in the tribe of Dan, mentioned in Joshua 19: 45 (and some Jewish writings), which is called "Bene-berak, the sons of lightning". The reason of this name might be inquired after.
I don't think he says a lot, but I think St Francis de Sales brings up that objection in one of the articles on the papacy in his book The Catholic Controversy
I like to think that Jesus refers to Peter as Petros, because he is in fact a man, then immediately follows it up with Petra, because Peter, being the head of the Church, is now at the same time with the Church, the bride of Christ. So Petros refers to Peter's masculinity as a man and Petra refers to him being the bride of Christ. No idea if that's a fair interpretation or not, but it makes sense to me.
Christ would have spoken Aramaic to Peter. There is no gender in Aramaic unlike in Greek and Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. So, Peter was simply called Cephas (Rock).
@@clivejames5058 Oh I didn't think of that, but that makes perfect sense - thank you. That's very interesting ... I wonder why the variations then in the "gender" of the rock.
Even if I grant that Peter is the rock referred to in this passage, how does that do anything to prove the necessity of the papacy? The church was indeed built by Peter (and the other apostles) but that in no way means that Peter has some kind of line of successive popes who also have apostolic authority like him.
Peter was named Rock in the context of "binding and loosing", and he (the Rock) was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven in the next verse, which references Isaiah 22, and the prime ministership with the keys in the OT. The Pope is to God as a prime minister is to a king. Christ is King; Peter (and his successors) serve as His prime ministers. It doesn't make sense to establish the office of prime minister while Christ has not yet come again, only to abolish the office when Peter dies. Luke 22:32, Jesus prays for Peter *in particular* that he may confirm his brethren - that is the office of Pope! To confirm the brethren, to maintain their faith, to maintain *unity* in the Body of Christ, which is the Church. Plus the Jews had a tradition of preserving lineages, even "laying on their hands" to do so, after proving that they could trace their lineage back to Moses. That the Apostles Christ appointed would do the same is entirely expected; that was their culture, and they, as Jews, knew how to preserve something important. The knowledge of the Apostles was important and worth preserving! If the Apostles felt the need to replace Judas (Acts 1), surely Peter too would be replaced!
Because in the next part of this discourse Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, directly referencing Isaiah and the stewardship of the old kingdom. Jesus was establishing an office that must be filled upon vacancy.
Let's say Peter is given some authority. Does that authority die with him? It seems on its face to be pretty unlikely. Also, take into account that Peter's authority actually was used in the first century after his death (i.e. Clement of Rome writing to a church and telling them to knock it off, even though John was still alive and one of the more important apostles, and if my memory serves me right, living nearer to that church than Pope Clemente). If Peter's authority really died with him, why would we see it continue to be used by the bishop of Rome immediately after?
@@catholickirby How could you possibly interpret the Bible in such a bureaucratic and legalistic manner? "It doesn't make sense to establish the office only to abolish the office when Peter dies" there's no office, only the Church, we are united in the Holy Spirit, wake up! You're addicted to the pharisaic mindset.
If Peter is the Rock and he preached that The Father Yahweh/Jehovah resurrected Jesus why most Christians not even believe in the one who resurrected Jesus? Acts 5:30 The God of our forefathers (JAH) raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a stake. Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham (Jehovah) and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus,
@@jakeburke838 one in spiritual union, you guys need someone to teach spiritual words. John 17:11.. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that THEY may be ONE just as WE ARE ONE
@@lofislozano8529 What does the opening of John mean if Christ is not God, YHWH? "In the beginning was the Word... The Word was with God and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The Word is God from eternity's past, but somehow is different from God, therefore we say it is "with God," yet also simply God. Who else, then, is the Word that became flesh?
That's easy. Peter's statement of faith is the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church. By now that statement has been multiplied billions of times and is, in it's essence, the Church. Got it?
At minute 5:00. Exactly! "The same thing referred to is carried over..." The same thing referred to is Peter's declaration of faith, which is the bedrock and very foundation of the Christian Church. Not Peter. So simple. The Peter/rock thing is just another one of Jesus' play on words.
*PETRA/PETROS/LITHOS: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING* _Why the endless debate over Mt __16:18__ doesn't really matter._ *Point #1:* If Jesus can feed 5,000 people with a small number of fish, He can build a Church on a grain of sand if He wants to. And He did. *Point #2:* REGARDLESS of how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted, the haymaker is the very next verse. In Mt 16:19 Jesus says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this passage Jesus is quoting Is 22:20-22 in which God took the key of the office of Royal Steward from Shebnah and gave it to Eliakim. The typological parallels are stunningly obvious and undeniable. Here are questions to ask our non-Catholic adelphois: 1. Did Jesus inherit the throne of the house of David? (cf. Lk 1:32-33) 2. Is Jesus an eternal king whose kingdom lasts forever? 3. Did Jesus intentionally quote the passage from Isaiah when He spoke to Peter? 4. Did Jesus intentionally re-establish the office of steward by giving Peter the keys symbolic of that office? 5. Does the office of steward continue forever in an eternal kingdom? 6. If a steward is replaced or dies, does another man take his place? 7. Would a steward’s decree contrary to the will of the king be allowed to stand? 9. Peter died and another man took his place, and then another man replaced _him,_ etc.; does that mean that someone still has those keys? 10. Who? By arguing for the papacy from Mt. 16:19 instead of Mt 16:18, you can avoid the petra/petros conundrum and establish apostolic succession at the same time thereby killing two birds with one stone. (See what I did there? 😊)
A more simple explanation when Jesus spoke-saying "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" might relate more logically to the place where they stood in the region of Caesarea Philippi.
That's utterly ridiculous. Peter was literally RENAMED the ROCK (cephas) from that moment forth, which only makes sense if he was the rock referred to by Jesus
The fact that Jesus is the Christ or messiah is the question, it has nothing to do with Peter, the “rock” or foundation of Christianity is the fact that Jesus is the messiah, the savior of the world
@@jakeburke838 I watched it, horrible objection, and the fact that he refers to “Tao taun”was the word used is what was previously mentioned gives more credence to Jesus being the messiah, the inquiry in question is “who is Jesus” in the context hence that’s what is previously referring to, not Peter being a rock but Jesus being the foundation of Christianity, his argument backfires completely
@@japexican007 If Christ is the Head, and the Church is also the body of Christ, why wouldn't Jesus have just said the whole thing is me? And I can turn it back against you, do you believe it is founded on Christ or on faith/the confession of faith?
@@joachimmartinez-alkhizir5839 St. Augustine did not deny the interpretation that Peter was the rock, and even once held it. He simply stated an alternative possibility, but did not reject the Petrine reading - nor would he have failed to favour it, had he known Greek.
When you think about it Jesus is considered the corner stone. But Peter is the rock. Kind of like the first Rock Jesus places in building his church. something I was pondering about that subject 🤔
Additional verses to ponder on this topic: "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." ~ 1 Peter 2:5 "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." ~ Ephesians 2:19-22
@Super Mario @Nikoli Athletics sensual glowing skin and shiny flowing hair, eyes that take up half the face. The image looks gay. Sure, it predates the sexual revolution but at best it's very kitchy and sentimental. I get a feeling of revulsion, that I have to supress.
Few problems with the papacy. No office of a papacy (chief shepherd, chief bishop) mentioned in the NT. Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd or bishop of any church. No apostle acknowledges him as such. Peter never claims to be the rock on which the church is built.
If in the early Church everyone recognized the primacy of Peter, there would be no need to go around proclaiming it from the roof tops. Everyone knew it. And we have the Tradition that has been passed down to justify our own continued belief in what everyone believed back then. And there is plenty of evidence, undeniably so, that Peter was first among Apostles and had a special mission. Peter's name is mentioned way more often than any other Apostle in the Gospels - three times as often as the next most commonly referenced Apostle, John. It was to Peter that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, peter whom Christ named Rock, and Peter whom Christ charged with "feeding My sheep". In Luke 22 Christ prays for Peter specifically that his faith might not faith, so that he may confirm his brethren. Scripture and Tradition are very clear - on what basis do we disagree?
@@catholickirby That's like saying the president of the USA never says he is the president nor does anyone else say he is. Peter never claimed to be the head of the apostles. Nor did any of the apostles acknowledge he was. Here is how we know Peter was no pope: 1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church. 3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
@@Justas399 You're comparing different cultures and different eras and expecting 1:1 correspondence. If the early Church did not recognize the office of Petrine supremacy, the early Church would not have acted like there was a Petrine supremacy (like Clement's letters)
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” Matthew 16:13-15 KJV “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 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 16:16-17 KJV 1. Jesus: who do men say that I am 2. Disciples: x,y,z 3. Jesus: whom do you say that I am 4. Peter: thou art the Christ, the son of the living God 5. Jesus: Correct and upon this foundation (rock) I will build the church The passage has nothing to do with Peter, the foundation that Jesus built his church was upon the fact that he is the messiah, the savior of the world Is Christianity founded upon Peter or upon Jesus the messiah? The answer is obvious
@UC_kusP3Mngpsn-vPXaJS0Sw “I think faith is founded on the Holy spirit” incorrect, faith is founded upon the fact that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day for if that’s not true then our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied. “Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” 1 Corinthians 15:11-19 KJV
@UC_kusP3Mngpsn-vPXaJS0Sw 1. I don’t believe to know anything that’s what Gods word says 2. I don’t believe Gods salvation is affected by whichever language you read the Bible in, if it is so then you and I don’t worship the same God, my God would’ve not let salvation be applicable to only those who could read Aramaic and everyone else be screwed, but it’s clear salvation is a free gift and as such everyone gets upset because they don’t want to admit it has nothing to do with them but all about God
@Cameron Gaylor Sir, why should you trust your own interpretation of scripture? Sola scriptura leads to many many conflicting and irreconcilable interpretations, even and especially among the most learned of men. So visit anyone to say they have the right opinions on it, but the Orthodox and Catholic Church? It seems to me that Christ would not leave us without some mechanism to determine definitively what the truth is. Not on every single puny matter, but on the important and essential things, like Salvation, the Eucharist, and Church structure. Let's take Sola scriptura to its logical conclusion. "All we need is Jesus. We don't need other silly stuff like the Trinity." After all, was not the Trinity only called the Trinity after many years? And it is not taught EXPLICITLY in scripture. Furthermore it is not stated to be essential for salvation in Scripture, yet I presume you still believe in it. Apply the same fair logic to Apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Papacy, and soon enough you'll find yourself crossing the tiber.
That's so easy. The Rock upon which Jesus would build his Church is Peter's, and every subsequent believer's, confession of faith in Himself, Christ Jesus. And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:4-5 And... The image you have used for Jesus at the beginning of this presentation is indeed unfortunate. Hate to say it but, just kinda looks like a woman.
Referring to Peter, "rock" was translated from a Greek word, Petros, meaning "piece of a rock" . When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church..." that Greek word for rock, petra, meant a mass of rock. Peter was a mere human. No, Jesus was/is the Rock, God Himself.
I've previously listened to the entire video but I really do enjoy these focused edited clips. A nice addition to my electronic library.
This guy knows his stuff
This was very interesting! I'd had no idea this point was ever debated. When I was learning it as a kid (I went to Catholic school), they made a point of highlighting the fact that Peter means "rock" and so it meant that Jesus was building His Church with Peter as the foundation and the head.
I am 38. It has been a four year journey from deep in the protestant world, but I am being confirmed and joining the Holy Catholic Church that Christ Himself founded on all saints day in less than two weeks from now. Matt, there are many people I can thank for my conversion and intend on doing so. You and your work has not been insignificant. I can't find any way to contact you via mail, or email to do so. I can't possibly write all I want to in this comment thread I am typing on my phone. Thank you, brother. Than you!
If the rapture occurs within the next two weeks and you find yourself left behind, the “messiah” revealed afterwards is the antichrist and you’re in the 7 year Tribulation
@@japexican007 rapture? Man-made protestant theory not even the earliest Christians believed.
This is an extremely important piece of information that needs shared! Thanks Suan!
Amen to the Glory of Jesus Christ.
Hi Matt. Welcome to Ohio!!
I usually am not a "commenter" but ever since I found your video debating against the Cameron with the fancy hair I wondered if he was on the same level theologically as my sister who converted to protestantism. So I asked her to look at his channel. She did and said they, (her and her husband) are unsure of him and usually follow John Piper and R.C. Sproul. I really admire the way you have debated with our protestant brothers. Your approach helps me learn how to be genuine.
I know John Piper has a podcast. Would you ever consider a debate with one or both of those guys?
Sounds like she may believe in some false teachings of Calvanism.
Maybe she would benefit from the RUclips channel "How to be Christian".
The main problem with the "Peter is not the rock" argument is that it turns the nickname that Jesus just gave Simon into an insult
This problem doesn't exist in Greek or in Latin languages. Petra is a femenine word, so Jesus won't give Peter a femenine name, he's a guy after all. So Jesus calls him Petrus, which is masculine.
Whoa. The end is the best!
Obviously Jesus talks like the hulk. "Jesus rock, rock go smash"
You are a rock Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, why not say upon you I will build my church since he’s addressing Peter, doesn’t make sense, but upon this foundation, the foundation that Jesus is the Christ makes perfect sense, the savior of the world
@@japexican007 Peter means rock. So it's you are a rock Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church.
@@jakeburke838 you are a rock rocky and upon this rocky rock I will rock the rock all rock long
@@japexican007 why even rename Peter? Jesus didn't rename John or Thomas etc.
@@jakeburke838 why even ask who Jesus was if it wasn’t in reference to the response?
Mind blowingly deep and rich conversation on the topic 👌👍👍👍
Brilliant!... 🙏🇵🇹
Amen!
An interesting parallel I learned about in a book by Scott Han on the Scriptures was that the temple built by Solomon was built on a very large rock and at the time it was said that the rock was so big that it was the "gate to the underworld." Jesus told Peter that he is the rock on which he will build his church and the gate of Hades will not prevail against it.
Jesus did not tell Peter that, it is an invention of the Catholic Church to claim supremacy over all believers. God refers to Himself as the Rock many times in the Bible. All ignored by these men who push the Catholic agenda. Read the Bible yourself. "Build your house upon the Rock", do you really think Jesus meant "build your house on man".
The Catholic Church wants you to believe this because the Pope's are only sinful fallible MEN like the rest of us, they elevate THEMSELVES to be God on earth.
Caesarea Phillipi where Jesus said this has a massive cliff face that was full of idols, which sat on a cavern called 'the Gates of Hades. You can google for the images.
My biggest personal issue with this is how the Scriptures are silent. They never say "and Peter, Cephas, became the head, universal bishop over the entire Church on earth at Rome as instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ. And those he laid his hands upon became his successive leaders"...or something to that effect.
When the NT was penned the Church at Rome was barely a blip on the radar. It was still in its infancy compared to all the other Churches already established by one of the twelve other Apostles. Really, the first Church "founded" by Peter himself was Antioch I believe...
you'll see in bishop lists of Rome that the church of Rome was founded by Peter & Paul. I've come across a bunch of Catholic scholars who don't believe this. Rome's early prominence is quite simple. It was because it was the capital city. That's why the claims for the papacy only took root in the Western Roman Empire. There were no other really big cities to counterbalance the growing aspirations of the Roman bishop, unlike in the East.
Yeah, it’s weird how when you ignore all the passages that emphasize the preeminence of Peter the Scriptures are silent…
@@TheCrusaderPub I get all those passages. I hear ya. I'm born and raised RC. I can see the argument. But I'm more referring to the lack of evidence for the office of the "universal papacy" over all other Churches for all time. The weird lack of information on Peter supposedly even in Rome to begin with. We need Tradition to tell us all of this.
Revelation/Apocalypse doesn't even use the Church at Rome as one of it's examples....they're all other Churches....more weirdness. And the one Church that sounds the closest described as Rome is....the W of Babylon....😳
Just saying.
@@TheCrusaderPub I could create a long list of Scriptures that establish the preeminence of Paul. But only if I mangle Scriptures to fit a predetermined conclusion like Catholics by using their arguments.
@@aGoyforJesus who gathered and canonize the Scriptures? The church you reject.
Why not both? Jesus is still the rock. The Church and proper faith are called rock. The person of Peter is still Rock, and that based on the fact he is deified and graced by Christ as Rock, which comes from Christ. Just as Christ is the Light, and we are lights of the world. The prime Rock who is not eternal is Peter, from whom we receive our example, but Peter gets his Rock-ness from Christ who is the eternal Rock of our faith and salvation.
I think the mistake is both Protestants and Catholics seem to try to exclude one another’s arguments. But I see that both are correct.
🙏
Caesarea Phillipi where Jesus said this has a massive cliff face that was full of idols, which sat on a cavern called 'the Gates of Hades. You can google for the images.
Yes it is important to pay attention where Jesus SPECIFICALLY took the apostles. 😉
In portuguese (my mother language) it says "Tu és Pedro (Peter) e sobre esta pedra (rock) edificarei a minha Igreja"
Pedro = masculine
Pedra = feminine
So it does makes sense this in latin derived languages
Exato, negro
@@carmemseverino5062 Racist
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?”
Matthew 16:13-15 KJV
“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 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 16:16-17 KJV
1. Jesus: who do men say that I am
2. Disciples: x,y,z
3. Jesus: whom do you say that I am
4. Peter: thou art the Christ, the son of the living God
5. Jesus: Correct and upon this foundation (rock) I will build the church
The passage has nothing to do with Peter, the foundation that Jesus built his church was upon the fact that he is the messiah, the savior of the world
Is Christianity founded upon Peter or upon Jesus the messiah?
The answer is obvious
New sub here! Thank you so much for this! This is the exact thing I have been puzzling over all week. I had almost come to the conclusion that the rock had to be Peter's confession, not Peter.
You gave me more to ponder, thanks! (I'm searching for truth and really want Catholicism to be the answer. But I'm trying not to jump into anything too fast. Because I have made that mistake before)
God bless you!
What about Ephesians 2:20?. Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. So, Christ is the Rock, the apostles (not just Peter) and the prophets are anchored to the Cornerstone.
Is Suan really only 21 years old?
All of the above. Jesus, Peter’s confession and Peter himself are what constitute the “rock”. So, not Jesus alone. Not Peter alone. Not the confession alone. All of the above. Anyone who understands building structures(as Jesus does) knows that a foundation is more than just one element. And this does not weaken or threaten the primacy of Peter either. We know that Jesus is the spiritual rock(St Paul), which makes Peter the memorial of Jesus upon the earth, upon which is written “Jesus, the Christ, Son of the Living God.”
Unless I missed it, Mr. Sonna did not mention all of the Old and New Testament verses where Jesus is described as the rock, foundation and cornerstone. It is the Rock, Christ, that is the means and anchor of salvation. Peter`s declaration regarding who Jesus is, is the very essence of this truth. Christ is the foundation of our faith. Peter and the apostles, as teachers of the Word, build upon this foundation but Christ is the meaning, promise, hope and Rock of our faith.
A rock is something used many times in scripture. Just like father is a word used to describe God the Father, or father Abraham, or Paul/John describing themselves or others as fathers in faith.
The problem is Jesus specifically calls Simon a rock and then says on THIS rock He will build His Church. Direct context negates other uses of the term rock, just as if I were to point out a verse that says “Father, who art in heaven” I would clearly not be speaking about the father Abraham nor the fathers being written to in 1 John.
He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same: Augustine-
"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
The two opinions aren't mutually exclusive and Augustine does not deny the possibility of Peter's person being referred to. Augustine also did not know Greek, but only knew Latin, so he lacked the insight of the Greek language which makes is *undeniable* that Peter's person is being referenced.
@@catholickirby a total tabulation of the Fathers has Peter being the Rock as the minority view on the verse.
@@catholickirby Its obviously deniable as a great many deny that the Verse is refering to Peter. In fact the greek actually cuts against your interpretation and i have had Roman Catholics admit this and appeal to Aramaic.
@@Adam-ue2ig The only way the Greek could be construed as cutting against the *person* of Peter being the rock is the gendering of the language, petros to petra, but this is addressed in this video, and is not at all problematic. Still, appealing to Aramaic shows how the same idea expressed in words Jesus would have actually spoken becomes even more clear, but this does not mean the Greek has to be abandoned, for both the pattern - Peter says "thou art the Christ" to Jesus, establishing His identity, and Jesus does the same, "thou art Peter", establishing his identity - and also the use of the Greek word for "this same", that is, "this same rock [just referred to]", namely, Peter, clearly establish that Peter's person is the rock. And discussions about possible meanings, such as Augustine's, are not the same as *denying* that the verse refers to what it refers to. Those with a knowledge of Greek (which not all Fathers had) cannot deny the clear meaning.
@@catholickirby are you denying that yours is the minority view among Fathers?
The rock is Christ, within Peter and everyone who is born again. Peter explains this in his first epistle. The revealing by the Father to Peter, was Christs Spirit.
1 John 5:1.
The reason why the renaming, is due to the fact Peter was the first of many.
Peter himself does not agree with the RCC interpretation when reading his own epistles. Peter, along with the other apostles, were the foundation, with Peter simply being the oldest.
I've heard before that Jesus was just giving the name Peter as a nickname, like "sons of thunder". Is anyone able to help me make a clear distinction between the two so that I can explain with clarity and confidence that St. Peter IS the rock?
Not an answer, but a tidbit that may be worth investigating regarding this topic:
There is a city which was in the tribe of Dan, mentioned in Joshua 19: 45 (and some Jewish writings), which is called "Bene-berak, the sons of lightning". The reason of this name might be inquired after.
I don't think he says a lot, but I think St Francis de Sales brings up that objection in one of the articles on the papacy in his book The Catholic Controversy
I like to think that Jesus refers to Peter as Petros, because he is in fact a man, then immediately follows it up with Petra, because Peter, being the head of the Church, is now at the same time with the Church, the bride of Christ. So Petros refers to Peter's masculinity as a man and Petra refers to him being the bride of Christ. No idea if that's a fair interpretation or not, but it makes sense to me.
We the believers, the church, are the bride of Christ.
Christ would have spoken Aramaic to Peter. There is no gender in Aramaic unlike in Greek and Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. So, Peter was simply called Cephas (Rock).
@@clivejames5058 Oh I didn't think of that, but that makes perfect sense - thank you. That's very interesting ... I wonder why the variations then in the "gender" of the rock.
@@nickk4851 As to the variations, I think people are looking too hard at the Greek language when it didn't play a part at the time.
Even if I grant that Peter is the rock referred to in this passage, how does that do anything to prove the necessity of the papacy? The church was indeed built by Peter (and the other apostles) but that in no way means that Peter has some kind of line of successive popes who also have apostolic authority like him.
You know you Protestants are on thin ice!!! Always talking about taking the scriptures literally!!! What a joke!!!
Peter was named Rock in the context of "binding and loosing", and he (the Rock) was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven in the next verse, which references Isaiah 22, and the prime ministership with the keys in the OT. The Pope is to God as a prime minister is to a king. Christ is King; Peter (and his successors) serve as His prime ministers. It doesn't make sense to establish the office of prime minister while Christ has not yet come again, only to abolish the office when Peter dies. Luke 22:32, Jesus prays for Peter *in particular* that he may confirm his brethren - that is the office of Pope! To confirm the brethren, to maintain their faith, to maintain *unity* in the Body of Christ, which is the Church.
Plus the Jews had a tradition of preserving lineages, even "laying on their hands" to do so, after proving that they could trace their lineage back to Moses. That the Apostles Christ appointed would do the same is entirely expected; that was their culture, and they, as Jews, knew how to preserve something important. The knowledge of the Apostles was important and worth preserving! If the Apostles felt the need to replace Judas (Acts 1), surely Peter too would be replaced!
Because in the next part of this discourse Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, directly referencing Isaiah and the stewardship of the old kingdom. Jesus was establishing an office that must be filled upon vacancy.
Let's say Peter is given some authority. Does that authority die with him? It seems on its face to be pretty unlikely. Also, take into account that Peter's authority actually was used in the first century after his death (i.e. Clement of Rome writing to a church and telling them to knock it off, even though John was still alive and one of the more important apostles, and if my memory serves me right, living nearer to that church than Pope Clemente). If Peter's authority really died with him, why would we see it continue to be used by the bishop of Rome immediately after?
@@catholickirby How could you possibly interpret the Bible in such a bureaucratic and legalistic manner? "It doesn't make sense to establish the office only to abolish the office when Peter dies" there's no office, only the Church, we are united in the Holy Spirit, wake up! You're addicted to the pharisaic mindset.
If Peter is the Rock and he preached that The Father Yahweh/Jehovah resurrected Jesus why most Christians not even believe in the one who resurrected Jesus? Acts 5:30
The God of our forefathers (JAH) raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a stake. Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham (Jehovah) and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus,
@Luke Williams the son of man receives the dominion by The Ancient of Days his God and Father Jehovah Daniel 7:13,14 Luke 1:32
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." also Hallelujah is more accurate pronunciation of Yahweh
@@jakeburke838 one in spiritual union, you guys need someone to teach spiritual words.
John 17:11.. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that THEY may be ONE just as WE ARE ONE
@@jakeburke838 Hallelujah actually means "Praise YAH" so I think you got mixed up there
@@lofislozano8529 What does the opening of John mean if Christ is not God, YHWH? "In the beginning was the Word... The Word was with God and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The Word is God from eternity's past, but somehow is different from God, therefore we say it is "with God," yet also simply God. Who else, then, is the Word that became flesh?
That's easy. Peter's statement of faith is the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church. By now that statement has been multiplied billions of times and is, in it's essence, the Church. Got it?
There were disciples before Peter who made declarations of faith in Jesus. Why didn't Jesus say they were the Rock?
At minute 5:00.
Exactly! "The same thing referred to is carried over..." The same thing referred to is Peter's declaration of faith, which is the bedrock and very foundation of the Christian Church. Not Peter. So simple. The Peter/rock thing is just another one of Jesus' play on words.
I'm not a Catholic but I will enjoy your take on this nonetheless.
Sorry, that's too reasonable in this debate!
*PETRA/PETROS/LITHOS: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING*
_Why the endless debate over Mt __16:18__ doesn't really matter._
*Point #1:* If Jesus can feed 5,000 people with a small number of fish, He can build a Church on a grain of sand if He wants to. And He did.
*Point #2:* REGARDLESS of how Matthew 16:18 is interpreted, the haymaker is the very next verse. In Mt 16:19 Jesus says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
In this passage Jesus is quoting Is 22:20-22 in which God took the key of the office of Royal Steward from Shebnah and gave it to Eliakim. The typological parallels are stunningly obvious and undeniable.
Here are questions to ask our non-Catholic adelphois:
1. Did Jesus inherit the throne of the house of David? (cf. Lk 1:32-33)
2. Is Jesus an eternal king whose kingdom lasts forever?
3. Did Jesus intentionally quote the passage from Isaiah when He spoke to Peter?
4. Did Jesus intentionally re-establish the office of steward by giving Peter the keys symbolic of that office?
5. Does the office of steward continue forever in an eternal kingdom?
6. If a steward is replaced or dies, does another man take his place?
7. Would a steward’s decree contrary to the will of the king be allowed to stand?
9. Peter died and another man took his place, and then another man replaced _him,_ etc.; does that mean that someone still has those keys?
10. Who?
By arguing for the papacy from Mt. 16:19 instead of Mt 16:18, you can avoid the petra/petros conundrum and establish apostolic succession at the same time thereby killing two birds with one stone. (See what I did there? 😊)
Look at the early church fathers who had a bunch of different views on this passage and then tell me again about your papal claims.
Just hit replay.
A more simple explanation when Jesus spoke-saying "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"
might relate more logically to the place where they stood in the region of Caesarea Philippi.
That's utterly ridiculous. Peter was literally RENAMED the ROCK (cephas) from that moment forth, which only makes sense if he was the rock referred to by Jesus
@@Peter-jo6yu
explanation
The fact that Jesus is the Christ or messiah is the question, it has nothing to do with Peter, the “rock” or foundation of Christianity is the fact that Jesus is the messiah, the savior of the world
watch the video, he addresses this objection.
@@jakeburke838 I watched it, horrible objection, and the fact that he refers to “Tao taun”was the word used is what was previously mentioned gives more credence to Jesus being the messiah, the inquiry in question is “who is Jesus” in the context hence that’s what is previously referring to, not Peter being a rock but Jesus being the foundation of Christianity, his argument backfires completely
direct vs indirect objects, it's a grammar thing
@@jakeburke838 what is Christianity founded upon? do you believe it is founded upon Christ or upon Peter?
@@japexican007 If Christ is the Head, and the Church is also the body of Christ, why wouldn't Jesus have just said the whole thing is me? And I can turn it back against you, do you believe it is founded on Christ or on faith/the confession of faith?
80% or so of the quotes from the Fathers say the Rock is Peter’s confession of faith.
True Christians only follow our heavenly father
Could I get a citation for that? Thanks
Can you name even one Church Father who claimed that the rock was exclusively a confession, and not the person of Peter?
@@catholickirby St Augustine
@@joachimmartinez-alkhizir5839 St. Augustine did not deny the interpretation that Peter was the rock, and even once held it. He simply stated an alternative possibility, but did not reject the Petrine reading - nor would he have failed to favour it, had he known Greek.
When you think about it Jesus is considered the corner stone. But Peter is the rock. Kind of like the first Rock Jesus places in building his church. something I was pondering about that subject 🤔
Additional verses to ponder on this topic:
"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." ~ 1 Peter 2:5
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." ~ Ephesians 2:19-22
@@pennsyltuckyreb9800 all great passages that show Jesus is the rock(foundation) of Christianity and not Peter
Or... the rock where they were close by. See Michael Heiser.
Please do not use that image of our Lord (thumbnail). Do I really need to say out loud what the immediate impression of it is?
what is it?
@Super Mario @Nikoli Athletics sensual glowing skin and shiny flowing hair, eyes that take up half the face. The image looks gay. Sure, it predates the sexual revolution but at best it's very kitchy and sentimental. I get a feeling of revulsion, that I have to supress.
@Super Mario doubt.
i bet most just leave instead of enduring this stuff.
@Super Mario do you have the ability to be emotionally repulsed by things that are too sentimental?
@Super Mario that makes it worse
Few problems with the papacy. No office of a papacy (chief shepherd, chief bishop) mentioned in the NT. Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd or bishop of any church. No apostle acknowledges him as such. Peter never claims to be the rock on which the church is built.
If in the early Church everyone recognized the primacy of Peter, there would be no need to go around proclaiming it from the roof tops. Everyone knew it. And we have the Tradition that has been passed down to justify our own continued belief in what everyone believed back then. And there is plenty of evidence, undeniably so, that Peter was first among Apostles and had a special mission. Peter's name is mentioned way more often than any other Apostle in the Gospels - three times as often as the next most commonly referenced Apostle, John. It was to Peter that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, peter whom Christ named Rock, and Peter whom Christ charged with "feeding My sheep". In Luke 22 Christ prays for Peter specifically that his faith might not faith, so that he may confirm his brethren. Scripture and Tradition are very clear - on what basis do we disagree?
@@catholickirby Jesus is mentioned way more than any of the apostles, it seems clear Jesus is the rock
@@catholickirby That's like saying the president of the USA never says he is the president nor does anyone else say he is.
Peter never claimed to be the head of the apostles. Nor did any of the apostles acknowledge he was.
Here is how we know Peter was no pope:
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church.
2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church.
3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
@@Justas399 You're comparing different cultures and different eras and expecting 1:1 correspondence. If the early Church did not recognize the office of Petrine supremacy, the early Church would not have acted like there was a Petrine supremacy (like Clement's letters)
Kindly, read 2 Thessalonians 2:15
I thought it's Dwayne Johnson?
Ba-dum-tss!! 🥁
K bye!
Hmm, I will now say “first” to acquire clout. Also, convert to Catholicism :)
Based
"this" in the Greek does NOT mean "this same." That was a blatant lie, a James White-level lie.
This is so silly! The whole point of the Rock being Peter is so that Catholics can say that he was the first pope. SMH
SHAMEFUL!
Are you disputing that Peter is the Rock?
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?”
Matthew 16:13-15 KJV
“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 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 16:16-17 KJV
1. Jesus: who do men say that I am
2. Disciples: x,y,z
3. Jesus: whom do you say that I am
4. Peter: thou art the Christ, the son of the living God
5. Jesus: Correct and upon this foundation (rock) I will build the church
The passage has nothing to do with Peter, the foundation that Jesus built his church was upon the fact that he is the messiah, the savior of the world
Is Christianity founded upon Peter or upon Jesus the messiah?
The answer is obvious
@UC_kusP3Mngpsn-vPXaJS0Sw “I think faith is founded on the Holy spirit” incorrect, faith is founded upon the fact that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day for if that’s not true then our faith is in vain and we are to be pitied.
“Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”
1 Corinthians 15:11-19 KJV
@UC_kusP3Mngpsn-vPXaJS0Sw 1. I don’t believe to know anything that’s what Gods word says
2. I don’t believe Gods salvation is affected by whichever language you read the Bible in, if it is so then you and I don’t worship the same God, my God would’ve not let salvation be applicable to only those who could read Aramaic and everyone else be screwed, but it’s clear salvation is a free gift and as such everyone gets upset because they don’t want to admit it has nothing to do with them but all about God
@Cameron Gaylor Sir, why should you trust your own interpretation of scripture? Sola scriptura leads to many many conflicting and irreconcilable interpretations, even and especially among the most learned of men. So visit anyone to say they have the right opinions on it, but the Orthodox and Catholic Church? It seems to me that Christ would not leave us without some mechanism to determine definitively what the truth is. Not on every single puny matter, but on the important and essential things, like Salvation, the Eucharist, and Church structure.
Let's take Sola scriptura to its logical conclusion.
"All we need is Jesus. We don't need other silly stuff like the Trinity." After all, was not the Trinity only called the Trinity after many years? And it is not taught EXPLICITLY in scripture. Furthermore it is not stated to be essential for salvation in Scripture, yet I presume you still believe in it.
Apply the same fair logic to Apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Papacy, and soon enough you'll find yourself crossing the tiber.
That's so easy. The Rock upon which Jesus would build his Church is Peter's, and every subsequent believer's, confession of faith in Himself, Christ Jesus.
And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:4-5
And... The image you have used for Jesus at the beginning of this presentation is indeed unfortunate. Hate to say it but, just kinda looks like a woman.
Referring to Peter, "rock" was translated from a Greek word, Petros, meaning "piece of a rock" . When Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church..." that Greek word for rock, petra, meant a mass of rock. Peter was a mere human. No, Jesus was/is the Rock, God Himself.
Did you listen to the argument. Jesus literally says you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church
You should actually watch the video
There's no difference in meaning between Petros and petra, they're just the maculine and feminine forms of the same word
@@brittoncain5090 right. So Jesus is calling Peter Rock in the masculine form
@@markwilkie7633 Exactly, because Peter is a man