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.
Yes, the reason for the difference is that Jesus was using a play on words, linking the masculine name Pevtro with the feminine object pevtra (rock) on which Jesus said the Church would be built. This foundation rock (pevtra) was clearly also the 'cornerstone' that Ephesians says was Jesus.
Jesus would surely not have used the long-winded descriptive words 'a movable', nor 'a large massive' though. His words would therefore have been 'you are stone, and on this rock I will build my church'. It is clear that the word 'rock' here is a reference to the 'stone' that he had only just mentioned.
Indeed, if Simon Peter was 'ke'pha' (stone), then this equates him even better with Ephesians' 'cornerstone' (Jesus) - a 'large massive rock' that is used as the principal support for buildings.
Its clear to me you are wrong. I suppose you believe Peter is also the rock carved out of the mountain and throne at the colossus feet ...
Peter was a bigot and a coward ... God bless the poor legalist. Certainly he was a beloved of God, but he was not the cornerstone of the church. He was simply the apostle to the Hebrews.
Peter was a bigot and a coward ... God bless the poor legalist. Certainly he was a beloved of God, but he was not the cornerstone of the church. He was simply the apostle to the Hebrews.
I didn't initially want to believe it myself, but if the evidence fits ... (and believe me, the book contains reams of it).
Jesus began as an apostle to the Hebrews. You may think that Simon Peter was a bigot, a coward and a legalist, and I can see why you think so. But being human isn't always easy. The evidence suggests that Simon Peter (Jesus, as a man) had his own personal desires and preferences, as we all do - in his case, initially legalistic Jewish ones. I think this is understandable, given his background. But I believe that he cast these personal feelings aside for the sake of his wider gospel mission. This is one of the things that ultimately made him so great.
Simon Peter is not Jesus Christ and any evidence is false and If you chose to honestly believe any fiction that someone thought up than that give birth to being deceived...... Simon Peter was number one Apostle and Jesus Christ is Lord of Life and Son of Man and Savior of the world.........Lying spirits will want to know who you are is you believe fiction books are true so believers of Christ who are smart will not even read the false books that undermine the Lord God.......And if they have got the book , that it will end up in the trash were it belongs......so lying spirit have no place in christians lives......
Pcamps, it wasn't difficult to see that, but I thought it was still worthwhile to consider whether there was something we could learn from your post, even if it was tongue in cheek.
In some ways, there are analogies with the gospels. Simon was said to be Peter, Saul was said to be Paul, James & John were said to be Boanerges, Joseph (in Acts 1:23) was said to be both Barsabbas and Justus, and there are several more double or triple names like this. Rather like in your Spartacus clip, everyone in the gospels seems to claim they are named something different to what they really are named. It gets you thinking, why shouldn't it have been the case that Jesus too might have claimed a second name, in the same way? What do you think?
Sorry if you thought my comment wasn't really taking your post in the spirit in which it was intended. Please keep posting - funnies or otherwise!
Pcamps, it wasn't difficult to see that, but I thought it was still worthwhile to consider whether there was something we could learn from your post, even if it was tongue in cheek.
In some ways, there are analogies with the gospels. Simon was said to be Peter, Saul was said to be Paul, James & John were said to be Boanerges, Joseph (in Acts 1:23) was said to be both Barsabbas and Justus, and there are several more double or triple names like this. Rather like in your Spartacus clip, everyone in the gospels seems to claim they are named something different to what they really are named. It gets you thinking, why shouldn't it have been the case that Jesus too might have claimed a second name, in the same way? What do you think?
Sorry if you thought my comment wasn't really taking your post in the spirit in which it was intended. Please keep posting - funnies or otherwise!
Toni no disrespect to you but i cannot see how possibly Jesus and Simon Peter were/are the same person.Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God , Peter is isn't.
ps
I have enjoyed other posts by you and learnt from them.
Toni no disrespect to you but i cannot see how possibly Jesus and Simon Peter were/are the same person.Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God , Peter is isn't.
ps
I have enjoyed other posts by you and learnt from them.
I thought the same way when I first started reading the book, but perhaps Simon Peter is the Son of God. Why shouldn't he have been? Jesus displayed miraculous powers, but so did Simon Peter. Jesus healed a lame man just by telling him to 'get up', so did Simon Peter. Jesus brought a young girl back to life, so did Simon Peter. Jesus walked on water, so did Simon Peter. And there are scores of other similarities, many of them apparently unique to these 'two' people.
For now, I am convinced by the book 'The Judas Secret' that there was only one such person - that Simon Peter and Jesus Christ were just alternative names for the same man. I'm on his thread looking for someone to show me where this conclusion is wrong. At the moment, I'm finding that no one can show me where it's wrong, yet no one's even acknowledging that it could be right. I don't know why there's such reluctance - the possibility that Jesus might have had the name 'Simon' makes no difference to Christian doctrine nor his wonderful good news message.
I thought the same way when I first started reading the book, but perhaps Simon Peter is the Son of God. Why shouldn't he have been? Jesus displayed miraculous powers, but so did Simon Peter. Jesus healed a lame man just by telling him to 'get up', so did Simon Peter. Jesus brought a young girl back to life, so did Simon Peter. Jesus walked on water, so did Simon Peter. And there are scores of other similarities, many of them apparently unique to these 'two' people.
For now, I am convinced by the book 'The Judas Secret' that there was only one such person - that Simon Peter and Jesus Christ were just alternative names for the same man. I'm on his thread looking for someone to show me where this conclusion is wrong. At the moment, I'm finding that no one can show me where it's wrong, yet no one's even acknowledging that it could be right. I don't know why there's such reluctance - the possibility that Jesus might have had the name 'Simon' makes no difference to Christian doctrine nor his wonderful good news message.
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.
I suppose you believe Peter is also the rock carved out of the mountain and throne at the colossus feet ... 
