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.
It is difficult to note all of the evidences without copying a big chunk of the book, and I'm a bit reluctant with copyright and all that. Also, much of the evidence is quite complicated and based on detailed chains of logic.
I will give one straightforward piece at this stage, particularly as FirstBorn888 mentioned it in a recent post. He brought up the idea of Peter being the 'rock foundation' on which the Christian Church would be built (Matthew 16:18). However, Ephesians 2:20 teaches that Jesus himself was the 'cornerstone' that supported the Church, and that the (other) disciples merely 'built upon' this 'foundation'. Thus, both Jesus and Simon Peter were said in the New Testament to have filled this unique role of being the Church's 'foundation stone'. This seems to be a clue that both names referred to the same man. And there are many more clues like this scattered throughout the New Testament.
This claim is surprising, I agree. But it's surely worth considering. It doesn't undermine Christianity in any way. It just reveals that Jesus might have had another name.
If Jesus was Peter, which is a common Protestant argument for debunking the following critical set of biblical verses, then let us substitute Jesus everywhere that Peter appears, me for you, etc, and let's see if it makes any sense: (substitutions are in bold)
Matthew 16:13-19
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do I [you] say that I am?"
16 Jesus [Simon Peter] replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus answered himself [him], "Blessed am I [are you], Jesus [Simon Bar-Jona]! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to me [you], but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I tell myself [you], I am [you are] Jesus [Peter], and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give me [you] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
22 And Jesus [Peter] took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to me [you]."
23 But he turned and said to himself [Peter], "Get behind me, Satan! Iam [You are] a hindrance to me; for I am [you are] not on the side of God, but of men."
Makes perfect sense to me. Especially those last few verses. It's like Jesus is hearing voices in His head and talking with himself. Yea, that's the man that I want to follow....a man with multi-personality disorder. What about writings of Peter, the Early Church Fathers, and references to Peter in the NT. I am sure that was Jesus all along. How could we be so stupid as to not see this incredible truth right before our eyes.
Or just maybe Jesus was just talking to Peter, who are two separate and distinct individuals. That seems a little more plausable to me.
Now I don't believe in book burning, but "I understand".
And alluding to his death to take place soon that would catapult the new converts into full fledged leaders of other new converts.. But Simon Peter also had to learn a lesson about the weakness of the human mind and heart. He denied Christ although his intention was to die for him if need be. After that Simon Peter seems to grow stronger and stronger in his ministry.
There does seems to be a rock-like quality in Peter. His having denied Jesus was the lesson that allowed him to heal a man crippled from birth with the words: "Silver and Gold I do not have, but what I have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."
--what I have I give to you--
Anyway as to the OP, I don't see how one can say Jesus was Peter unless Jesus' death (as Jesus) really didn't happen so that he could die as Peter... There is record in Acts and 1 Corinthians (9:5) that he traveled with his wife. So how can Peter be Jesus?
Yeah, but even after we see that Simon was a bigot and twice sinned against Gods command to not prefer the circumcision, for which Paul thereafter rebukes him.
If Peter was "the first pope" then how could he have been rebuked by Paul?
And we read Paul's own words, that though he was the greatest among sinners, he was also "the greatest apostle" ...
Oh, please don't be like that. All that we all want to do is to find out more about Jesus. I don't think the book undermines Christianity. In fact, it seems to support it by giving evidence in favour of its historicity. Let's stay friendly.
Well the concept of Peter being a pseudonym for Christ quite literally undermines much of the new testament, such as the book of acts and the gospels that present Peter as having denied Christ after his death.
That's interesting, of course its allot easier to just realize Christ was not referring to Simon being the rock on which he built his church but to what peter had said about Christ being the messiah.
The name Peter means 'rock', he was also called 'Cephas' which means 'rock', and Jesus tells Simon Peter 'Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my Church'. The interpretation that you have given relies on the unikely coincidence of Jesus referring to two different types of unrelated 'rock' in consecutive clauses. Possible, but hardly the most likely interpretation.
The name Peter means 'rock', he was also called 'Cephas' which means 'rock', and Jesus tells Simon Peter 'Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my Church'. The interpretation that you have given relies on the unikely coincidence of Jesus referring to two different types of unrelated 'rock' in consecutive clauses. Possible, but hardly the most likely interpretation.
A few minutes later, He turns and rebukes him as Satan.
Don't take the "rock" comment too seriously - Jesus was referring to Pete's state of mind (and heart) in those respective times.
I don't see how one can say Jesus was Peter unless Jesus' death (as Jesus) really didn't happen so that he could die as Peter...
Simon Peter was said to have been crucified, and in a 'head downwards' position (Eusebius' Church History 3:1:2).
Jesus was said to have been crucified, and with his head 'bowed' (John 19:30).
There's no need to presume two different deaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
There is record in Acts and 1 Corinthians (9:5) that he traveled with his wife. So how can Peter be Jesus?
The name Peter means 'rock', he was also called 'Cephas' which means 'rock', and Jesus tells Simon Peter 'Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my Church'. The interpretation that you have given relies on the unikely coincidence of Jesus referring to two different types of unrelated 'rock' in consecutive clauses. Possible, but hardly the most likely interpretation.
Christ never said "you are the rock on which i build my church ... Lets look at the Greek shall we?
Now, what is the Christ referring to when he says upon this rock i will build my church? Is he referring to Peter or to the fact that he(Christ) is the messiah? What is the fundamental aspect of Christianity? Is it that Peter was the first Pope? Or is it that Christ is the promised messiah?
With just a little reasoning capacity we can see that Christ names Simon Peter only because he was the first to announce that Christ is the messiah. It is not because Christ intended to build his Church on the legalist cowardly bigot whom the scriptures reveal Peter actually was. Christ is the corner stone, the foundation on which the church is built is knowledge and faith in him as the messiah, not in faith in peter as being the first pope.
Also i will note here that Christ named Simon Peter(petros - proper masculine noun), yet he said "upon this rock(petra - feminine noun) i will build my church" ... Had Christ meant he was building his church upon Simon Peter he would have said ... "upon this rock(petros - proper masculine noun) i will build my church" ...
God bless ...
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.
