Let's end this debate

>>1903830
Peter isn't the "Rock"; and the church during this time is a group of disciples, a gathering of people that went to the synagogues.

>And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

kἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, kαὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰkοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐkkλησίαν, kαὶ πύλαι Ἅιδου οὐ kατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Πέτρος, Petros / Peter kαὶ and ἐπὶ on ταύτῃ this τῇ the πέτρᾳ petra/rock οἰkοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐkkλησίαν, "I will build my church"

The Rock is the testimony of faith, Peter is not the Rock. Why does Christ tell Peter "upon this rock?" Becaus4e the two verses before:

>Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.

Peter calls Jesus "Christ" and Christ says "My Father in Heaven revealed that to you" - That is the Rock, is the testimony of faith revealed to by the Father that Christ is the Anointed.

Let's look further into the "Rock"

>And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer (Psalm 78:35)

God is the Rock.

>[2 Samuel 22:32]"For who is God, besides the LORD? And who is a rock, besides our God?

Who else can be the Rock besides God?

God is the foundation of all spirituality, not Peter, though Peter is important. In the same Chapter Matthew 16:23 Jesus then says to Peter;

>Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

See, Peter says a good thing, calling Jesus "Christ", and then is called "Satan" for trying to stop Jesus' mission.

>>1903894
If Peter isn't the rock, why does he get given the 'keys to the kingdom' and the power to 'bind and loose' in heaven? (Matthew 16:19) And why does Petros sound so similar to Petra? Isn't this just an obvious pun to heavily associate Peter with being the Petra?

>>1903913
https://gotquestions.org/binding-loosing.html

I hope that link helps with the "keys"; because the keys are symbolic as well, though, unless Jesus gave Peter the keys to His Chevy... we might have been wrong about the Bible..

Anyways; the keys have many meanings, the keys could be the ability to practice to spiritual communion; it is actually this verse where people say "Peter's at the gate of Heaven"

To understand further, Matthew 18 is a important chapter to read to get a better idea of what all of this means

>>1903913
Peter is also the masculine form of petra, though Peter is called Peter, but is named Simon

>And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).

File: Apostolic Sees.png (119KB, 1152x674px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1152x674px

>>1903830
>As far as I can see only Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican denominations have any real claim to this.
Don't forget the orientals and the assyrians.
Tbh, i'd say e.orthodoxy, but given the fact the catholics and e.orthodox have recently agreed on how primacy and synodality worked in the first millenium, and the orientals and easterners signed a common christological declaration in the 60's, in the near future, we might not have to choose anymore.
>>1903894
it is both. Patristic and historical sources give both interpretations.

>>1904009
There is only one Rock

>>1903894
Luke 5:4-11
And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” ...

>Peter founded the Church
What

File: mt16.png (114KB, 1547x603px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1547x603px

>>1903894
In the John 1:42, when Jesus first met Peter he said he'll be named "Rock":
>And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.
Keep in mind even though the gospels are written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic, Πέτρος/Peter and πέτρᾳ/rock are the same word.
>pic related
The reason they use different words on the Gospel of Matthew is that πέτρᾳ is a femenine word, and it will be weird to call a man with a femenine noun in Greek.

>>1903913
All bishops have that power (Matthew 18:18).

roman catholic church is the whore of babylon. Christ's kingdom is the kingdom of heaven. Luther did nothing wrong.

>>1905706
Peter isn't the Rock. the First Epistle of Peter, it is very clear that Jesus is the Rock, and we are all rocks;

>As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—

Jesus is the Stone

>5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

We are all like living stones. the word used is λίθον (lithon) meaning stone, which is also petros, Peter is made a proper noun distinct from the petros, even if they spoke Aramaic;l

>You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

In context, "You are Peter, and on this Peter I will build my church" / "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" either meaning "on this (what Peter says) or "on this rock(Peter)" which is emphasis, like saying "You are Paul, and on this Paul I will build this convenience store"

. We do not believe Peter is the "foundation" of Christianity, because God and Christ is the actual foundation of Christianity.

Peter is not worshipped; and the rock is the testimony of Peter, not Peter.

>>1905711
Every religion has a theme of "authorities" being able to bind and loose, really too, we all have this ability.

>>1905756
I think the Roman Catholic church was corrupted and became a social condition, which is where Luther comes in as a response to this social condition. Though now, the Vatican is not as radical as they were in those days where they caused a lot of problems, and Luther did nothing "wrong" though we do have countless branches of Protestantism that separate each other from each other. The confusion Christians have about secondary beliefs should always be inferior to the Word of God that unites them.

Paul says to be of one mind and one spirit, that we need to be of one body which has many parts but functions as a whole. There is no need to divide the Body of Christ with minor arguments