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.
"this rock" can be interpreted a number of different ways, all of which seem logical by those who are doing the interpreting.
I have given several justifications for 'Peter' being the 'rock' that was being spoken about. Until now, I have seen no justifications for the counter-argument - just an unsubstantiated opinion apparently based on a preference that the 'rock' were something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
"We know that He is the chief cornerstone of that Church and that the prophets and apostles are its foundatation.
If Jesus is the chief cornerstone that underlies and principally supports the Church, then he himself is the rock on which the Church is built. It is
not credible that there would be two different kinds of metaphorical 'rocks' supporting the Church - one Jesus himself and the other the intangible concept of 'revelation'.
By the way, the prophets and apostles were not specifically identified as 'the foundation' itself - in the Greek, the case is genitive and indicates that the apostles had possession of this foundation, i.e. ran or were responsible for the Church that was based on Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
"That His teachings continue to be taught after His death could only be guaranteed if He knew He could rely on the fact that there was someone on earth He could continue to speak to, even though He would no longer be physically present. That's why I believe that the rock was revelation between Heaven and Earth -- i.e. the means by which He would maintain the integrity of His message.
This sounds reasonable, but the word 'revelation' is not even mentioned in the verse - merely the observation that a specific piece of information had been revealed to Peter. The link between the verb 'revealed' and a 'rock' is clearly far more tenous than between the preceding noun 'Peter'
(meaning rock) and 'petra' (a 'rock').
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I think all of us believe the Bible, and it's not so much that we pick which bits we believe and which bits we don't. It's more a matter of how we put them all together and what conclusions we draw from them.
The Bible is already 'put together' for us. All we have to do is read it and accept that it means what it says.
I have given several justifications for 'Peter' being the 'rock' that was being spoken about. Until now, I have seen no justifications for the counter-argument - just an unsubstantiated opinion apparently based on a preference that the 'rock' were something else.
Okay, well, I felt that my opinion was well substantiated. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Quote:
By the way, the prophets and apostles were not specifically identified as 'the foundation' itself - in the Greek, the case is genitive and indicates that the apostles had possession of this foundation, i.e. ran or were responsible for the Church that was based on Jesus.
I'll go along with you on that. As a matter of fact, that ties in very closely to my beliefs. The apostles as a united body held the keys of authority. Peter alone held them all.
Quote:
This sounds reasonable, but the word 'revelation' is not even mentioned in the verse - merely the observation that a specific piece of information had been revealed to Peter. The link between the verb 'revealed' and a 'rock' is clearly far more tenous than between the preceding noun 'Peter'
(meaning rock) and 'petra' (a 'rock').
Neither is the word "God" or "Jesus." Jesus never said, "I will build my church upon myself."
Quote:
The Bible is already 'put together' for us. All we have to do is read it and accept that it means what it says.
I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't said anything about gnostics, Mary Magdalene and bloodlines. You obviously haven't read the book I am talking about, yet you insist it is a delusion. You tell me I'm going the wrong way, but don't respond to any point that I have raised. You think that will make me 'turn around'?
It's , we know what your talking about, and it makes no scriptural sense. You presuppose, apart from the plain text of scripture that Jesus Christ is Simon Peter, insisting that this is not a delusion. If you place any value in the written word of God, then it is you who must prove your presupposition as true based solely upon the plain text of scripture. As for "turning around" we can't make you do anything. This much is certain..."if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it." Exodus 20:25. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
Previous posts have provided multiple pieces of Biblical evidence identifying 'the rock' as God, Jesus and Peter.
So why ignore this and say instead that 'revelation' is the rock, just because Jesus said 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it (that Jesus was the Messiah) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven'?
You might as well say that 'blessing' must be the rock because Jesus said the word 'blessed'.
Why do so many people clutch at straws in a desperate attempt to find any alternative they can to avoid the obvious - that Jesus was identifying the person he was just talking about (Peter) as the rock (Petra)?
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.
Perhaps you could explain to me, then, how the rock on which the Church is built differs from the rock that provides the Church with its foundation?
One is Peter, who the church is built upon, and the other is Christ, who is the foundation of the church itself.
Peter the Rock, built upon Christ the cornerstone. At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. 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. Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon... Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" Matthew 21:42. Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.
Have you ever considered that one of Merriam-Webster's English Dictionary's definitions of rock is "Woman's family line...? Look it up...
Peace!
Ignored!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks
One is Peter, who the church is built upon, and the other is Christ, who is the foundation of the church itself.
Peter the Rock, built upon Christ the cornerstone. At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as "the rock", but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. 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. Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was "the Christ" and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon... Jesus Christ "the chief cornerstone" Matthew 21:42. Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.
The feminine counter of petros (pebble) is petra (rock)! More than likely...this possibility will again be ignored...for it does run counter to a Patriarchal mindset...
We're all a bunch of rocks. Little clay rocks with a bit of star dust mixed in the clay. Clearly, Jesus is the chief CornerSTONE on which the TEMPLE of God is built. There is NO worldly type hierarchy in Christ's Kingdom. No where does the scripture say anything about a Pope(Pappa).
Jesus said to call NO MAN ON THE EARTH your FATHER for there's only one Father who is in Heaven. Yet in the Catholic church, they continue to call men Father so-n-so______________.... That is one of many things that the Catholic Church teaches that is false. I am not sent to spend my time arguing with Catholics and telling them to "come out of the beast system". God must call them out or they're not coming out.
Jesus never said, "I will build my church upon myself."
That's because Simon Peter's identity as the Saviour Messiah (Jesus Christ) was a closely-guarded secret. 'He charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ' (Matthew16:20).
You presuppose, apart from the plain text of scripture that Jesus Christ is Simon Peter, insisting that this is not a delusion. If you place any value in the written word of God, then it is you who must prove your presupposition as true based solely upon the plain text of scripture.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlewitness
As for "turning around" we can't make you do anything.
Many who call themselves Christians love 'turning around' so that they don't have to face what's written in their own Bibles.
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
, we know what your talking about, and it makes no scriptural sense. You presuppose, apart from the plain text of scripture that Jesus Christ is Simon Peter, insisting that this is not a delusion. If you place any value in the written word of God, then it is you who must prove your presupposition as true based solely upon the plain text of scripture. As for "turning around" we can't make you do anything. This much is certain..."if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it." Exodus 20:25. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
Look it up...
