Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps if we look at how God uses the term "rock", we can see why Peter could never be the "rock".
Rather than asking yourself whether Peter 'could be' the rock, try simply noticing that he is 'rock' - that is what his name means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enow
Peter is not god.
How do you know? Christians are quite happy to accept that the man called Jesus was God or the Son of God, so why not the man called Peter?
'Jesus Christ' was merely a titular name for Simon Peter. These names were just two different labels for the same man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enow
Peter belong to God as in God's, but that is a totally different meaning than what Jesus was building His church upon and that was He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus spoke of the blessedness of this revelation and it is upon that revelation that the church is built upon.
So you say, but give no grounds or logical reasoning to support your argument; nor do you respond to the several grounds that I used to support my argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enow
Did not Paul withstood Peter face to face for withdrawing from the Gentiles with the brethren that were of Jewish converts? Seems Peter is a fallible sort for anyone to build the Church upon
I make no judgement on whether Peter/Jesus was fallible or infallible. But you can judge him if you want to.
One is Peter, who the church is built upon, and the other is Christ, who is the foundation of the church itself.
'Foundations' are what buildings are 'built upon' - ask a builder!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks
The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means "a pebble" or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" or bedrock.
As ans57 says, these are masculine and feminine forms of the same root word. The disciple Peter was a man, so was obviously going to be called by a man's name (Petros), and not by its female equivalent (Petra).
Besides which, the word 'petros' merely implies a loose rock or stone, and 'petra' a fixed one. In which case, a loose 'petros', once laid as the foundation stone of a building, becomes fixed, and so a 'petra'. In this way, it could be said that the man who is Peter (Petros) would later form the stable embedded rock (petra) on which the Christian Church would stand in the years to come.
Rather than trying to overcome the weakness in your case by adding the words 'small' and 'massive' to your definitions in order to exaggerate the difference between these words, why not look at the passage objectively and ask yourself whether there is anything new that you can learn from it about the gospel story?
'Foundations' are what buildings are 'built upon' - ask a builder!
As ans57 says, these are masculine and feminine forms of the same root word. The disciple Peter was a man, so was obviously going to be called by a man's name (Petros), and not by its female equivalent (Petra).
Besides which, the word 'petros' merely implies a loose rock or stone, and 'petra' a fixed one. In which case, a loose 'petros', once laid as the foundation stone of a building, becomes fixed, and so a 'petra'. In this way, it could be said that the man who is Peter (Petros) would later form the stable embedded rock (petra) on which the Christian Church would stand in the years to come.
Rather than trying to overcome the weakness in your case by adding the words 'small' and 'massive' to your definitions in order to exaggerate the difference between these words, why not look at the passage objectively and ask yourself whether there is anything new that you can learn from it about the gospel story?
Perhaps if we look at how God uses the term "rock", we can see why Peter could never be the "rock".
Deuteronomy 32:37And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,
Rock practically means god. Peter is not god. Peter belong to God as in God's, but that is a totally different meaning than what Jesus was building His church upon and that was He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus spoke of the blessedness of this revelation and it is upon that revelation that the church is built upon.
Did not Paul withstood Peter face to face for withdrawing from the Gentiles with the brethren that were of Jewish converts? Seems Peter is a fallible sort for anyone to build the Church upon: but Jesus Christ is the foundation by which the church is built upon.
1 Corinthians 3:10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
May God help every reader take pause and take the matter to Jesus in prayer for discernment and wisdom in the reading of His words...and not rest in the laurels of anyone else's on this matter.
Peter was called neither Petros or Petras. Jesus called Simon Barjona Kepha which was Aramaic. So the Greek gender argument doesn't hold a drop of water. Neither does, Jesus was talking about God or that Peter was actually Jesus. You just have to substitue Jesus everywhere that you see Peter or any pronoun referring to that person and you will quickly see it doesn't make any sense and is clearly trying to avoid what is actually written there.
The plain text?! Jesus did not speak plainly, but in 'parables' (Mark 4:34) and using 'figures of speech' (John 16:25). Or don't you believe what the gospels say here? Do you place any value on these written words of God?
There are scores of proofs in the gospels. Here is one:
The gospels state that the man who 'went out' carrying the cross was called both Jesus (John 19:17) and Simon (Matthew 27:32). I have noted this three times before on this forum, and not one person replied to it.
Many who call themselves Christians love 'turning around' so that they don't have to face what's written in their own Bibles.
...Toni, we know you're angry, and we sincerely wish you well, but the fact remains that you have a simple, but severe case of scriptural amnesia concerning the weight of the cross that Jesus bore (John)19:17, and the scriptural fact that the advent of Matthew 27:32 is descriptive of one Simon of Cyrene whom the Roman soldiers compelled to help Jesus bear the burden when Jesus evidently buckled under it. Trust us, we have it on the Highest Authority that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and Simon of Cyrene are not the same person. So while you continue to lash out at such a great cloud of witnesses that you find offensive to a lie you ignorantly defend, we'll continue to pray that The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you The Joy of scriptural discernment...
Peter was called neither Petros or Petras. Jesus called Simon Barjona Kepha which was Aramaic.
The Bible also says that Jesus 'put on him the name Petros' (Mark 3:16). But if you don't believe what the Bible says, that's your prerogative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
So the Greek gender argument doesn't hold a drop of water.
Of course it does, because the whole of the gospel story was written in Greek. If the gospels say the words 'Petros' and 'petra', they say them for a reason. Or do you think that, because the New Testament was written in Greek, none of it 'holds a drop of water'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
You just have to substitue Jesus everywhere that you see Peter or any pronoun referring to that person and you will quickly see it doesn't make any sense
You tried to say this and give an example of it on the thread 'Was Jesus Christ really Simon Peter?' I showed you (on post number 52) how your own example did make perfect sense, which you then ignored.
I'm not angry. I have nothing to be angry about. It's just that when you say I 'know nothing', 'make no sense', am 'deluded', am 'going the wrong way' and am 'ignorantly defending a lie', I am inclined to turn your own expressed sentiments back on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlewitness
...you have a simple, but severe case of scriptural amnesia concerning the weight of the cross that Jesus bore (John)19:17, and the scriptural fact that the advent of Matthew 27:32 is descriptive of one Simon of Cyrene whom the Roman soldiers compelled to help Jesus bear the burden when Jesus evidently buckled under it.
You must have made up your own Bible. There is nothing in the gospels referring to the weight of the cross, nor Simon 'helping' Jesus bear it, not Jesus 'buckling' under it.
Read these words from the gospels and then tell me who carried the cross as they were going out:
'So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the Place of the Skull' (John 19:16-17) 'As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. They came to a place called Golgotha (which means the Place of the Skull)' (Matthew 27:32-33)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlewitness
Trust us, we have it on the Highest Authority that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and Simon of Cyrene are not the same person.
I would love to trust you, but how can people trust you when you add bits into the gospel story which weren't there?
Incidentally, who is this 'Highest Authority' of yours and where exactly does he state this?
The Bible also says that Jesus 'put on him the name Petros' (Mark 3:16). But if you don't believe what the Bible says, that's your prerogative.
My point is that Jesus ACTUALLY called Simon Barjona Kepha, which is ARAMAIC for Rock. Since Simon Barjona is a MAN, that was translated to Peter, which is the masculine form of it. Besides if you had actually read my link, you would descover that the gender differentiation didn't even apply. Geez, I am Catholic. Why would I possibly refute that Jesus called Simon Barjona the rock. You obviously didn't understand what I meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toni Sherente
Of course it does, because the whole of the gospel story was written in Greek. If the gospels say the words 'Petros' and 'petra', they say them for a reason. Or do you think that, because the New Testament was written in Greek, none of it 'holds a drop of water'?
Would you call a man by a feminine name? That would be insulting. Again, the gender differentiation is a false argument because of the already stated reason. To even proclaim that Jesus would build his church on a tiny pebble makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. But I know the true interpretation was held at least for 1500+ years before someone decided to reinterpret it and apparently is still being misinterpreted. Why? Because if the Catholics are right on this one, you might have to reconsider your beliefs. That's why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toni Sherente
You tried to say this and give an example of it on the thread 'Was Jesus Christ really Simon Peter?' I showed you (on post number 52) how your own example did make perfect sense, which you then ignored.
If you completely chuck logic out the door and just stick to your false, hidden agenda based claims, then I stop arguing.
One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the "rock" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17-19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the "small stone" Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the "large rock" (petra) of Jesus.
What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).
I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic:"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for our interpretation.
I knew enough back in 1991 to know that the interpretation of the rock as the revelation of Jesus’ identity was not entirely secure. It was a general deduction based on the themes being talked about in the passage, not a specific deduction based on the structure and grammar of the passage. Then, as my eyes went over the text once again, I suddenly noticed a structural feature of the passage that tipped the balance in favor Peter being the rock. Instantly, I knew I had to do a major theological re-evaluation.
For some time, I had recognized that if Peter was the rock then he would be the head apostle and thus, when Jesus returned to heaven, the earthly head of the Church. That would make him, in essence, a pope. If Catholics could be right about Peter being a pope, they might be right about other things—about everything. And so I would have to do a thorough re-investigation. When I did, I was forced to conclude the Catholic Church was right, and I became a Catholic.
After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17-19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" The third is also a blessing: "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—"And I tell you, you are Peter" taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.
I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!" is explained by "for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, "And I tell you, you are Peter" is explained by "and on this rock I will build my Church."
My point is that Jesus ACTUALLY called Simon Barjona Kepha, which is ARAMAIC for Rock. Since Simon Barjona is a MAN, that was translated to Peter, which is the masculine form of it. Besides if you had actually read my link, you would descover that the gender differentiation didn't even apply. Geez, I am Catholic. Why would I possibly refute that Jesus called Simon Barjona the rock. You obviously didn't understand what I meant.
I think I did know what you meant. The point I was making is that I don't presume to know what language Jesus spoke in. My comment is solely about the gospel account, which is in Greek, and which identifies that Simon was called 'Petros'. However, the salient point is that, whether he was named in Aramaic (Kepha) or Greek (Petros), the result is the same - his name meant 'rock'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
Would you call a man by a feminine name? That would be insulting. Again, the gender differentiation is a false argument because of the already stated reason. To even proclaim that Jesus would build his church on a tiny pebble makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. But I know the true interpretation was held at least for 1500+ years before someone decided to reinterpret it and apparently is still being misinterpreted. Why? Because if the Catholics are right on this one, you might have to reconsider your beliefs. That's why.
We agree once again. When people don't like the logical conclusion of the evidence they read, they generally ignore it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
If you completely chuck logic out the door and just stick to your false, hidden agenda based claims, then I stop arguing.
As I said, when people don't like the logical conclusion of the evidence they read, they generally ignore it.
Akin's argument provides sensible reasoning on the subject, apart from:
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
If Catholics could be right about Peter being a pope, they might be right about other things—about everything.
A ghastly attempt to make people believe whatever men in mitres tell them, and stop them from thinking for themselves!
I would probably get excommunicated if not stoned (thank goodness it's an N/A) for even suggesting these within the patriarchal based culture, here goes...
Through Peter's matrilineal descent Petra...will the church be built...
and the trinity encompassing God "The SPIRIT", "The Son" (male), and The comforter (female) the completion of a FAMILY, after all...in Genesis 2:27 God said...
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
To me...this is the perfect "TRINITY".
Food for thought...Peace!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Truth
) for even suggesting these within the patriarchal based culture, here goes...
