Why was Peter called the rock on which I will build the church?

Why was Peter called the rock on which I will build the church?
Jesus asked Peter who am I? Peter answered the Christ. Jesus said you have answered correctly and that was not revealed to you by man. This was of the Holy Spirit. Just recently I was told that Peter was not the rock Jesus talked about, but the revelation from the Holy Spirit was the rock he refers to. Which is it?

Suggestion by Jesus or Hellfire
Jesus is the Rock.

Suggestion by PaulCyp
Christ’s words to the apostle Simon were “THOU art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church”. “THOU means “YOU”. It doesn’t mean “God’s revelation to you”. Furthermore, if Simon was not the “Rock” Christ referred to, why would Christ then bestow upon him supreme authority (symbolized by “the keys to the kingdom”) and the charism of infallibility (Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven”)? And why would Simon thereafter be referred to as “Simon Peter”, meaning “Simon the Rock”??

Suggestion by Farsight
Peter is the rock. Grammatically, despite the rantings and ravings of people, Peter is the only possible rock that Jesus could be referring to. I know it’s years long gone, but if you can remember back to your grade school grammar class, and the proper structure of sentences, and terms like subject, and object, and how placement of a pronoun effects what/who that pronoun is referring to, it becomes clear that grammatically, Peter is literally the only possibility.

It also helps that at this point in time, Jesus literally changed his name to “rock” – Kephas in Greek. (or was that Hebrew? I get them backwards all the time) Name changes were also a huge deal in the bible – Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Saul to Paul.

edit – love the thumbs down. Apparently people have a problem with applying English grammatical rules to a sentence in English.

Give your answer to this question below!

Christians: What did the early Christians follow when the Bible wasn’t formed?
Off and on I hear some Christians ask whether a certain dogma (belief) is from the Bible or merely man made instructions. If they lived as early Christians they would never be able to ask such question because the Bible like they referred to didn’t exist yet until several hundreds years later.

Didn’t Jesus ask Peter to guide His congregations? Jesus didn’t ask Peter to rush and form a Bible to guide us, did He?

Now, what did the early Christians follow when the Bible wasn’t formed?

Suggestion by John
The early Christians followed the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Many early communities across the Roman Empire accepted all sorts of literature. Many of Paul’s letters began to circulate and, over time, they achieved a high status of geographical spread. Geographical spread of literature was an important criterion for early consideration of the canon.

You can also tell in many of Paul’s genuine letters that he had many opponents. For example, he writes a polemical argument against Jewish Christians who advocated the need for circumcision in the Epistle to the Galatians. 2 Corinthians is another example, where Paul becomes defensive of his teaching, which had been criticized by some “Super-Apostles” in Corinth. It is important to try to tease out as much information as we can regarding these opponents, to better understand the brand of “Christianity” they were preaching.

In addition, you could also look up a man named “Marcion,” who effectively established his own canon in the 2nd century. His canon composed of Paul’s letters and a version of the Gospel of Luke. He wrote a treatise called “Antitheses,” arguing that the God of the Hebrew Bible and the God of Jesus were completely different Gods. Though he was later declared a heretic, it is thought that his attempt to form a canon highly influenced the need for a canon by the then proto-orthodox.

Suggestion by Slightly Sweetened
They followed the teachings of Paul and Peter and John and whoever else was leading them. The Holy Spirit also dwelt in them.

Suggestion by Cognostic
The Early Christians were Jewish and they followed the Old Testament. It was not until Paul the heretic was excommunicated from the Jewish Christians and began teaching his own fabricated belief system to the gentiles that books of proto-orthodoxy began to be written. The ancient Christian beliefs were more diverse than they are today with every sect writing its own book and claiming direct decendancy from Christ himself. Paul’s version of the Christian faith became the official religion of Rome and at that point all other Christian faiths, the ones with wrong teachings, were systematically eliminated and their documents destroyed. Their houses of worship were changed into Christian houses of worship and anyone resisting the change was killed. We are very lucky to have some of the surviving manuscripts. The book of Thomas, Mary and Jude for example. There are many others as well. The childhood stories of Jesus, the other version of Adam and Eve, and a whole lot more.

Every little Christian sect had its own book. Roman Christianity won the day because of their greater organizational skills, communication system, and military might.

What do you think? Answer below!

Can somebody show me a law that requires me to pay an income tax?
1) The 16th was not ratified
2) 26 U.S.C. § 1 does not ever mention tax on a person’s labor.
3) The definition of Income from a 1040 booklet is Foreign source income.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf Look at page 22.

Also if you look at what to enter on line 7, it says wages, tips, salaries…. If a joint return enter your spouses INCOME.

Well my spouse has no income because they have not Foreign source income.

As for being part of the constitution, my freedom of religion is Christianity. Jesus asked peter from who do the kings of the land collect taxes from it’s own sons or foreigners?. Peter replied “From foreigners”.

Can’t my freedom of religion keep me also from paying INCOME taxes.

And yes, I know, I know, they’ll come and get me anyway and bring me to jail etc etc. That’s called extortion BTW which is illegal.

Suggestion by P J
If you post your address we will all send you some mail while you are in FEDERAL prison sitting on your ignorance.

Suggestion by information_police

Suggestion by Seven53
I have accepted in life…

The sun always rises
The sun always sets
The IRS gets their share

Thanks for the info but I can’t do anything with it….I like my freedom

What do you think? Answer below!

ask peter

ask peter anything ANYTHING! he knows……..

, , , ,

19 Responses to Why was Peter called the rock on which I will build the church?

  1. The happy Mormon May 20, 2013 at 8:42 am #

    Peter was a rock but not the rock, the church was to be built on. The Rock spoken of is the Rock of Revelation. God’s true church is led by him though continuous revelation. It is upon on the Rock of revelation Christ church will be built.

  2. Johannesq May 20, 2013 at 9:29 am #

    Remember the 40 days testing in the desert to fulfill Moses and the Prophets? Bread of Life The Rock of My Salvation, Blessed is He who floats His Bread on the Waters {firmaments gathered together and called seas; Animals from the sea is Revelation and Daniel}. 40 days wilderness, 40 days among the nations and Gentiles, Day for Year: 80// 60 minutes and 20; 1/3

    40 x 40 = 1600…

  3. FROG E May 20, 2013 at 9:51 am #

    Jesus is the Rock………Catholics use that scripture to justify their claim that Peter was the first pope and the Catholic church was started by Jesus.

    However, Jesus was telling Peter that He (Jesus) is the Rock and foundation of the One True Church…the Body of Christ. There are over 50 scriptures that says Jesus is the Rock.

  4. Ann May 20, 2013 at 10:20 am #

    Peter is not here today, but the church still is. The rock is that knowledge, which comes only through the Holy Spirit, that Jesus is the Son of God.

    “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cr 12:3)

  5. Ray May 20, 2013 at 10:27 am #

    Peter, or Petros was correctly translated a “small piece of rock” and the Rock on whom the church would be built was translated “the large rock”. This large rock was the revelation that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God who was sacrificed for the world’s sins; the messiah who was foretold in the Scriptures. It was the revelation from the Holy Spirit. And all revelation from the Holy Spirit is just as important today, as no man can know the Scriptures after the flesh, but they must be revealed or interpreted to us by the Holy Spirit.

  6. SuperDave May 20, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    The disciples asked Jesus why he couldn’t stay on earth with them.
    Jesus said to them: If I do not ascend to heaven, The (Spirit) will not be instructed to dwell with man-kind.
    Meaning no conviction or leading of God, through his Spirit.

    Without God’s Spirit there is no Church.

    On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.

  7. wgr88 May 20, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    Well, what Jesus –shall I read that whole thing in its context? It’s from Matthew 16:19 and what Christ is saying just before that also helps. “Simon Peter said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God’, and Jesus said, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father which is in heaven’.
    And He says, ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church”. Now here He’s talking about the declaration of Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus is going to build the church. ‘And I will give you the keys of the kingdom’—now He’s not talking to Peter, He’s talking to all the disciples who are there in this dialogue. And He says, ‘I’m giving you the keys to the kingdom; meaning, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. They had the freedom, in delivering the gospel to people, to make an eternal difference. What they did on earth would be seen in heaven. People who are…. Evil spirits and habits that were bound on earth would be bound for the world to come and it was saying that those who were loosed from those things would be loosed in the world to come.
    What they did on earth would last for eternity is all that Jesus is saying here. You want to hear an interesting Amazing Fact, since you waited so long,? Did you know that, of course the Catholic church believes that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and there is a statue of Saint Peter in the Vatican. And in the hand of Saint Peter’s statue are these keys. In March, his hand came up missing. Did you hear that? The hand was attached (it had been repaired once before so it was attached with a metal rod), and they discovered one day that someone had stolen Peter’s hand and so you could say the Vatican lost the keys to the kingdom.
    That was interesting fact that I read on the news today. They may have found them since then. This dates back to—I read this in Reuters News Agency from March, so I hope they’ve found the keys by now. But that’s not what the keys were. God does not deliver the power of salvation to any one mortal. The Term Peter means little stone The Term Rock is for Jesus Christ Jesus said you are Peter that is a movable stone but upon “This Rock” Jesus Christ is the church built.
    http://www.vop.com = bible lessons, http://www.bibleuniverse.com =bible. Hope this helps.

  8. Allegory May 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

    Grace unto you, and peace,
    from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    As for Peter, he was notably called “Satan” in Mt 16
    when he said Jesus = Christ since it’s an oxy-moron
    to say division, not peace = peace, not divided; So in
    Lk 22:32 he was prayed for that he would be
    ‘epistrepho’ converted = turn (away from law)
    so then he would strengthen (grace) brethren.
    Peter eventually did get ‘epistrepho’ converted,
    it was by reading all of Paul’s epistles in 2Pet 3;
    And Paul’s gospel is not the gospel of Jesus,
    but the gospel of God = Grace,
    and the gospel of Christ = Peace.

    As for Jesus, he was not perfected in Lk 13:32,
    nor perfected when resurrected and still upbraided,
    nor perfected when ascended to clouds = confusion.
    But did say he would be perfected the third day,
    which is now, the last day beyond 2 last days.

    As for Jesus’ Father,
    notice he’s not merciful in Mt 18:23-35,
    but your Father is merciful in Lk 6:36.
    So be merciful like your Father is.

    The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

  9. ex arcam May 20, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    Both. Jesus was connecting the ideas with wordplay — making a pun. ‘Peter’ is from the Greek ‘petros’ which means ‘rock’. It was the man’s nickname before he met Jesus. (In Aramaic it’s ‘kefe’ and Paul renders it ‘Cephas’ when he writes it in Greek.) Jesus saying ‘You are the Rock’ is a reference to the nickname, and probably to the man’s personality, which no doubt gave rise to the nickname; and at the same time to the firm, steadfast, unshakable quality of his declaration of faith. Adding ‘on this rock….’ meant that he would base his church on such faith. Those who claim Jesus was pointing to himself, or otherwise not referring to Peter, are trying to talk around the Catholic claim that Jesus makes Peter the head of the church on earth. But there’s no getting around that, because Jesus goes on to say that Peter has the keys to the kingdom and the power to loose and bind; that he has the commission to feed Jesus’ sheep; and so on.

  10. Elaine63 May 20, 2013 at 2:13 pm #

    Peter’s name means “stone”, or piece of rock. But this does not mean that he was the “rock-mass” upon which Jesus would build his congregation. However, Peter did not misinterpret Jesus words because Peter never claimed to be the rock-mass according to 1 Peter 2:4-10, he speaks of Jesus Christ as being the stone that the builders rejected. Additionally, the apostle Paul wrote: “For they (the Israelites in the wilderness] used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” Therefore the rock-mass was Jesus himself.

  11. BibleChooser May 20, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    The teachings of religious leaders, supplemented by the reading of individual religious texts (scrolls) of the congregations’ choice when congregations could afford such expensive luxuries.

    Remember: not only was the Bible not existent during the first 300+ years of Christianity; it is also true that a large percentage of Christians (estimates run no lower than about 90%, usually higher) were illiterate and would not have been able to read a Bible even if one had been available.

    So: the Christians followed the teachings of their religious leaders, whether those teachings were read from religious Scriptures or preached from memory without benefit of such extravagant luxuries.

    - Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

  12. tlc May 20, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

    The Bible also says “Give to Caesar what is Caesars.”

    Good try. Sorry.

  13. PepsiLime May 20, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    Not this again. I’ve attached uscode Title 26, for info about paying taxes.

    As I do recall though they also asked Jesus about paying taxes, and he asked them who was on a coin, and they said Caesar, and his response was give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. I don’t beleive that God is interested in getting tax money, so it must be paid to Caesar, and the govt is the current version of Caesar.

    Try not paying taxes, and let me know what prison and cell number you end up in.

    Your arguments about not paying taxes that you have quoted above have been used time and time again in tax courts, and have been shot down 100% of the time. And the tax courts have grown weary of hearing these arguments, so they have been hitting tax protestors with fines for putting forth failed arguments.

    I also believe that both Jesus and Peter were crucified, and you will be too if you try those wonderful arguments in tax court.

  14. bostonianinmo May 20, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

    Two things:

    1. Title 26 IS the law. If you think it isn’t, then see #2.

    2. You’re an idiot.

    In ref to your items.

    #1. False. See #2 above if you think it’s true.
    #2. There’s no tax on labor, that is technically true. There is a tax on income received as the fruit of your labor, however!
    #3. Yeah, so what? Foreign source income is taxed as well. Keep reading on to the instructions for line 7! It does NOT say that only foreign source income is reported.

    As to your religious objection, did not Jesus say, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto My Father that which is His.”?

  15. Daisy May 20, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    What are you telling us??? That you think everyone except YOU should pay for police protection, fire department protection, highways, education, environmental protection, and all the other things that are paid for through taxes? How old are you???

  16. Wayne Z May 20, 2013 at 4:45 pm #

    1) yes it was
    2) You’re right. It says income from whatever source.
    3) That is one of my favorite Tax Protester theories…..that because the first entry is “Foreign Source Income” that means that entire instructions only apply to Foreign Source Income. WRONG!!

    “Render Unto Caesar which is Caesar’s” – Translation – pay your taxes you moron.

  17. WaymoreParsecs May 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

    The poor working man should not ever be required to pay a tax on his work since he makes no profit from it!! Only (Bodies) that reap a profit should have to pay taxes. Taxes should come from profits made, not workers who are taxed already fromt having to work in order to pay the (Bodies). This would save the Govt. millions of dollars in paperwork alone. All cash money should be abolished. All transactions would then be on record. That would crush MOST ALL illegal activities! Set a limit on how much a person can make with a business. Nobody needs to make millions a year. This is not fair, and keeps the poor, old, and needy from essential provisions.

  18. NGC6205 May 20, 2013 at 5:51 pm #

    1) The 16th amendment was ratified. If you say it isn’t because of capitalization and spelling errors of the versions returned by the states, then you shouldn’t believe the 13th amendment is ratified either. I don’t see any statements from you questioning the legality of ending slavery after the Civil War.

    Anyway, whether it was properly ratified or not, it is now a part of the Constitution and the only way to remove it is by another amendment which would have to be ratified by the states. Until that happens, the 16th amendment exists and no court can question it.

    2) I’ll assume you mean the money you receive because of your labor. USC 26 § 1 says there is “hereby imposed on the taxable income of—” Taxable income is defined in §61, §62, and §63. §61 defines gross income. That section states, “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived…” That simple statement right there indicates income from wages. If you don’t believe that then § 3402 states, “every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.”
    Finally, every court that has EVER considered the issue has determined that wages are income. I’m not going to quote them because you’ll just claim it is all a government conspiracy which does nothing but prove that you are delusional.

    3) You obviously don’t know how to read documents. On page 22, there is a LARGE title “INCOME”. Under that is a small title “Foreign-source income” which only applies to the next four paragraphs. The main INCOME title is similar to a chapter title, and the smaller bold titles are section titles under the INCOME chapter. Your whole argument concerning this document is specious. If your spouse worked last year or she is still working this year, she had an income.

    4) No, your religion does not shield you from the income tax laws or any other law in our society. If your religion involved human sacrifice, do you think they wouldn’t charge you with murder?

    5) Enforcement of the law is not extortion. It is part of the necessary functioning of society. If you disagree with taxes, you have a choice, you can lower your income until you and your family are earning below the standard deduction, or you can pay your taxes, but vote for politician that you think will lower taxes.

    6) How do you know extortion is illegal? Can you show me the law that says it is illegal? Can you name it without looking it up? I bet you can’t. Neither can most people, but people know it is illegal because you couldn’t be charged in court with extortion unless there was a law. It is the same with tax evasion or failure to file charges, if there wasn’t a law, you couldn’t be charged in criminal court. BTW, an acquittal of failure to file charges doesn’t prove there isn’t a law anymore than O.J. Simpson’s acquittal proves there isn’t a law against murdering your ex-wife.

    7) One last thing, you ARE an idiot.

  19. brucec83 May 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

    If you think that you are going to get a federal judge to agree that taxes are unconstitutional, you need more help than we can give you.

    Here is the IRS’ answer to the common tax scam you are citing:


    Here is a Christian answer:


    So why don’t you render unto Caesar and do something good with your life besides entertaining yourself with fantasy?

Leave a Reply