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.
That is nothing but the "big lie" technique that is ubiquitous and had been discussed ad nauseum in other places with the final analysis being that those who insist on the Peter as rock position are not looking for truth, but support for a position of their church. Why they love their church more than truth is another question.
That is nothing but the "big lie" technique that is ubiquitous and had been discussed ad nauseum in other places with the final analysis being that those who insist on the Peter as rock position are not looking for truth, but support for a position of their church. Why they love their church more than truth is another question.
Nate-
First, it would be nice to know which post you are responding to. The quote function makes that easier, as I'm sure you know.
Second, "final analysis"? Don't you mean that it's "your personal opinion"?
Those who insist that Peter is the rock are not looking for truth because they have already found it. We're simply trying to help those who have not.
Now, I know you're going to object to that last statement, but here are the facts:
1. The Catholic Church has been saying this for 2,000 years.
2. Protestant scholars have begun to acknowledge that Peter is the rock now that some of the polemics of the reformation have started to die down.
3. Orthodox scholars are slowly reaching the same conclusion.
It is the ignorant masses (who are afraid of the implications possibly) that continue to deny the facts.
Looking at the post immediately prior is often a help in determining which post is being responded to especially if the subject or a comment in that post is the subject of the post you are reading.
Revisionist history on the subject does not help your case either. The history of the use of the technique is documented.
NO one with a lick of sense after objective study of the passage is coming to the conclusion that Jesus intended to say that He would build His church on a man. It is simply insane.
I realize that Catholic zealots will keep repeating this particular "big lie," and I will keep pointing out whenever I see it that it IS NOT TRUTH.
First, it would be nice to know which post you are responding to. The quote function makes that easier, as I'm sure you know.
Second, "final analysis"? Don't you mean that it's "your personal opinion"?
Those who insist that Peter is the rock are not looking for truth because they have already found it. We're simply trying to help those who have not.
Now, I know you're going to object to that last statement, but here are the facts:
1. The Catholic Church has been saying this for 2,000 years.
2. Protestant scholars have begun to acknowledge that Peter is the rock now that some of the polemics of the reformation have started to die down.
3. Orthodox scholars are slowly reaching the same conclusion.
It is the ignorant masses (who are afraid of the implications possibly) that continue to deny the facts.
Well I for one do not believe you. I believe it is a lie. Sorry!
Looking at the post immediately prior is often a help in determining which post is being responded to especially if the subject or a comment in that post is the subject of the post you are reading.
Agreed. Sometimes more than one post appears immediately prior and can be possible candidates.
Quote:
Revisionist history on the subject does not help your case either. The history of the use of the technique is documented.
NO one with a lick of sense after objective study of the passage is coming to the conclusion that Jesus intended to say that He would build His church on a man. It is simply insane.
I realize that Catholic zealots will keep repeating this particular "big lie," and I will keep pointing out whenever I see it that it IS NOT TRUTH.
How is it any less insane to build the Church upon a mere confession which would benefit Peter personally but do little for the rest of us? What would WE gain from the fact that Peter thought Jesus was the son of God? According to another poster in another thread, LOTS of people thought Jesus was the messiah beginning as early as Simeon. So, what's the big whoop at that? No, Jesus named Peter the Royal Steward of His household who had full authority when the King was absent.
But by all means, go through my post and be specific as to where my error is. I'm happy to discuss anything you wish to take issue with.
Otherwise, this just sounds like an assertion that is unsupported by evidence.
Well I for one do not believe you. I believe it is a lie. Sorry!
Where is the lie?
Here is just one Protestant scholar, a Baptist, on the subject of Matthew 16:18:
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
That was published in 1984. You might even have that commentary on your bookshelf.
Here is just one Protestant scholar, a Baptist, on the subject of Matthew 16:18:
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
That was published in 1984. You might even have that commentary on your bookshelf.
Where is the lie?
I don't care what Protestants have to say about it. I do not believe what you said. I believe it is a lie that the Church of Jesus Christ is built upon a man rather than upon the fact that Jesus is the Christ as he said. Plain and simple.
I don't care what Protestants have to say about it. I do not believe what you said. I believe it is a lie that the Church of Jesus Christ is built upon a man rather than upon the fact that Jesus is the Christ as he said. Plain and simple.
Oh. Well, get out your Greek NT, and reinvent the wheel if you like. You'll need to know a bit of Aramaic and the reasons why that's important. Dig into it and have some fun!
You will EVENTUALLY arrive at the same conclusion that other Greek experts have already acknowledged.
Oh. Well, get out your Greek NT, and reinvent the wheel if you like. You'll need to know a bit of Aramaic and the reasons why that's important. Dig into it and have some fun!
You will EVENTUALLY arrive at the same conclusion that other Greek experts have already acknowledged.
Not very likely. Been studying it for about 38 years now. I have that issue settled by the Holy Spirit in my soul. No need to question God about something He has confirmed to me.
How is it any less insane to build the Church upon a mere confession which would benefit Peter personally but do little for the rest of us?.
WHAT int the world are you talking about? It is not the fact that Peter confessed that the church is built on, but the fact of WHAT Peter cofessed, That "you are the Christ the son of the living God"
If THAT is the cause of your failure to see the truth, lay it to rest.
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.
Don't you mean that it's "your personal opinion"?
