Catholics: Here is a very clear twisting of Scriptures just to fit in your belief.?

Jesus told us that St. Peter is the leader of the shepherds. All of your attempts at eisegesis will not disprove the oral or written Word of God. Eisegesis impresses no one. There is a lot of proof that St. Peter was in Rome because he still is and is buried there across the Tiber from the city of Rome. Where is your authority to question Christ's Church? You have no authority to question the teaching of the Church especially using the book we wrote and canonized. The NT of the Bible you quote is about the Catholic Church written by Catholic Christians under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You are illustrating that you are having great difficulty understanding it without the teaching authority contained in the Church. Misusing Scripture can result in ones spiritual destruction and the death of ones soul to Christ. God bless!

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

Catholics will need to continue to teach history to our naive Protestant brothers, who are sheep without a shepherd. The scattered writings that became the New Testament weren't assembled by the Church into an authoritative canon for nearly 500 years.

The Protestants commit the same basic error as Jews and Muslims. They want a religion of the book. In fact, actual Christianity is a religion of the Word, and the Word is Jesus Christ, who lived the life rather than writing a book.

As Jews, Muslims, and Protestants have learned, people can read a book any way they please. The teachings of the Word of God were entrusted to a living Church, the faithful Christians who proclaim the Word in ever-new words, and who say no to the false teachings of the revisionists.

<<Fact:1. we can't find anything in the Holy Words of God that Apostle Peter did went to Rome.>>

And it needs to be in the Bible...why? Peter did go to Rome. The Bible isn't a news report giving us Peter's every step. The New Testament is mostly a collection of letters to the Churches of the day explaining to them how to be Christians, love God and sacrifice for him. Not a daily itinerary of what the Apostles were doing.

FACT: No where in the Bible does the Bible say everything must be in the Bible.

<<Do you agree with me that Christ Jesus is not pointing to Peter, He is pointing to Himself>>

No I do not agree, and neither do the Apostles, the early Christian writings, and 2000 years of Christianity. Sentence structure alone requires that Peter be the rock on which Christ is building his Church. Peter is named Rock, then immediately Christ refers to the rock on which he will build his Church. You can't twist scripture, and grammar, to make it say what you want. We should not read the Bible looking to support our beliefs. We should read the Bible looking to know God, and allow him to enlighten us...even if it means abandoning our beliefs.

<<a True Born Again Christian has already the Holy Spirit that help him/her to understand God Holy Words>>

If this is true, the why do so many "true Born Again Christians" disagree? You'll say because some of them are not true. How do we know who is true and who is not? Who has the authority to declare this? You? Those who agree with you? I'll take my chances with the original Church, instituted by Christ, and led by Peter and successive Popes. The early Christians, taught by oral tradition by the Apostles themselves, confirm Catholic belief and teaching...even before the New Testament was written in many cases.

Do "born-agains" have writings from the time of the Apostles to support their biblical interpretation? If so I'd like to read them.

Onw name for Jesus is the Rock. But Jesus also changed Peter's name, meaning a significant thing happened at that moment. Jesus appointed, anointed, selected him to head His Church on earth. Making Peter the first pope. I believe he was named a bishop first and the title 'pope' came later.

Peter didn't have to go to Rome. Paul was in Rome and I think John, later. But Peter was the head of the Christian Church.

Jesus was talking about Peter because He was addressed the disciples, not just Peter.

You need the Holy Spirit to open up your mind to understand the Scriptures. This will only be possible if you are using the one true Bible of the Word of God. The KJV is a man-made Bible.

Edit..1.....If as you say, you are guided by the Holy Spirit to understand the Scriptures, he isn't doing a good job with you because you are twisting Scripture to agree with your beliefs.

Edit....2....Will you pick the anti-Catholic basher as best answer, or will you just let your question go into voting? You are very quiet at the moment. I wonder why?

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood h

Ephie: You are now overloaded with catholic Truth. By now, you must contemplate the message. I warn you: It is not easy to assimilate the 2,000 yrs of Jesus's and the apostolic teachings. You have to learn it gradually. But first, study your christian and bible origin: then you will see what I mean. You must not rely on that 3-week crash course in evangelism. Pax.

No it's a clear example of you interpreting scripture in your own way:

Matthew 16:18

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. And 'I' will give to 'THEE' the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever THOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus is quite clearly talking to Peter. Being a sensible person Jesus knew that sheep needed a shepherd. He would not have been so negligent to leave us without one. The Apostles recognised this:

John 20:4

And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed.

i.e. St John recognises Peter as being in a position of seniority.

Act of the Apostles 15:6

And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

i.e. St Peter calls the apostles and the ancients to recognise his calling as leader, his ability to bind on earth.

When St Paul says 'that rock was Christ' he was not talking about the same rock as the one in question. There is more than one rock you know (ever been to a quarry?) each having different purposes. Peter is not the rock from which flows spiritual drink but he is the rock on which Jesus built His Church.

It is you who puts an 'extraordinary' meaning to these verses of scripture. We give them the meaning they always had and were clearly meant to have. You reduce yourself to hanging out on a limb and taking shots in the dark. Why on earth would Jesus say out loud to Himself. 'I will build my Church on you' (meaning Himself). NOWHERE else in scripture does Jesus talk to Himself in the second person so what is your evidence for suggesting He does here?

You say we are twisting Scripture, but you are twisting Scripture here.

You use one place where Christ is called the Rock (and St. Paul isn't even talking about where Christ says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church"), where St. Paul is talking about the Israelites out in the desert and decide that this must mean Christ is the Rock when He speaks to Peter.

Then I guess by your logic every fire mentioned in Scripture is the Holy Spirit since Moses saw God as a burning bush.

Of course, that is not true, right?

As for the part speaking about Peter, your conclusion doesn't make any sense.

He tells gives Peter this three fold blessing saying "Blessed are you, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father". Then He says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" and then He goes on to give Peter the Keys to Heaven.

By your conclusion, Christ says "Blessed are you Peter", "I am the Rock, you are a insignificant little pebble" and "I am giving you the keys to bind and loose, whatever you bind should be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose shall be loosed in Heaven."

That doesn't make any sense. Why called him blessed, then demean him and then give him the keys to the Kingdom of God?

Christ is certainly the Corner Stone--which is what St. Paul calls Him continuously throughout his letters, much more than "rock", but in this instance, Christ is calling Peter, Rock.

Let's look at the Greek (and please remember that Matthew's Gospel was written in Koine Greek, not the Greek we think of today.

Matthew writes "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona..." This is important because Christ starts by calling him by his given name: Simon.

Then Christ says "You are Peter (Petros) and upon this rock (petra), I will build my church."

In Koine Greek, there is no difference between petros and petra, not a single difference. They both mean "rock", one is just masculine and one is feminine. Before this point, there was no such word as "Petros", there was no one named Peter. It is important because Christ *changes his name* from Simon to Peter at this point, signifying a change in Peter's role. Christ is appointing him leader and all the Jews would've known it.

You have Abram becoming Abraham--when he became the leader.

You have Jacob becoming Israel--when he became a leader.

You have Joseph's name being changed by the Pharaoh, when he was given to Keys to the Kingdom

And so on. Throughout Scripture, a name change is a very significant thing, especially to the Jews and they would've seen immediately that Christ was putting Peter in charge just by the name change.

It isn't until much later that we see a difference in the use of petros and petra. Many Protestants try to say that "petros" means 'little pebble' and "petra" means 'huge rock'. But even that doesn't add up, throughout the New Testament we see that petra being used to mean "stumbling stone", you can't stumble over a huge rock. Also, if Christ was trying to demean Peter in this instance, He would've used the word "lithos", which does mean--without a doubt--'little pebble'.

Lastly, Christ most likely spoke Aramaic. We also see from St. Paul's letters, that this was highly probable and almost certain as St. Paul always called Peter "Cephas"--the Aramaic word for "rock".

So Christ, in Matthew says "You are Rock and upon this rock, I build my church."

This sentence does not in any way show Christ speaking about Himself.

*You* can try and twist the Scriptures, but your reasoning does not make sense.

Jesus Christ is the Corner Stone, it is He who decides how the Church will be built, He is the most important Stone and it is He who decides how the Church will be laid out. But He chose Peter to be the Rock upon which He builds His Church.

St. Paul says that it is upon the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets that the Church is built.

As for Peter going to Rome. First, the Pope does not have to be in Rome to be the Pope. Rome does not equal Pope. Many Popes travel around, but the Vatican is located in Rome. In the 400's there was a dispute over if the Pope should be in Rome or Constantinople. This was one of the reasons for the split of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Secondly, we have found Peter's body, it has been identified as such and has been where the Church believed Peter's body to have been buried all this time. In Rome.

Thirdly, it is a well known fact that Babylon was a code word for Rome, historians and archeologists agree on this point. Many times, Peter says “Hail from Babylon”, which obviously cannot be the Babylon of old as that has been destroyed and the place forgotten. No, Peter says Babylon because Rome was seen as a Babylon at that time. Look at the Roman culture at that time…Gladiator games, horrible deaths, crucifixions, torture, paganism, demons, possessions, Satan ruled that area completely.

Peter went

Jesus is "Petros" - foundation stone

Peter is "petros" - small stone

Who said the Pope had to be in Rome?

(better get your history straight. )