379 Denominations in a single nation

Association of Religious Data Archives ^

[adiaireton8]

Jesus did not name Simon a rock.

Actually, Jesus did name Simon "Rock". I read Greek.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Here you go:

ΚΑΓΩ ΔΕ ΣΟΙ ΛΕΓΩ ΟΤΙ ΣΥ ΕΙ ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΑΥΤΗ ΤΗ ΠΕΤΡΑ ΟΙΚΟΔΟΜΗΣΩ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΥΛΑΙ ΑΔΟΥ ΟΥ ΚΑΤΙΣΧΥΣΟΥΣΙΝ ΑΥΤΗΣ. (Matt 16:18)

-A8

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Posted once again for our edifiction...

RELIGION FORUM RESEARCH PROJECT
GOD IS THE ROCK

[tenn2005]

You’ll have the answer to your question when you stand before Him.

[tenn2005]

Actually, you could use a few more Greek lessons. Then you would understand the difference between a small stone (Peter) and a massive boulder (the rock on which Christ church is built.) A good Greek Lexicon such as Thayer’s should be a great help to you in understanding the difference between the two words.

[Michael81Dus]

In 1931, following the death of founder Bishop Mary L. Tate, the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, Inc., appointed three chief overseers. Eventualy, each became the head of a distinct segment of the church and then of an independent body called a dominion. One of the three chief overseers was M. F. L. Keith, widow of Bishop Tate’s son, W. C. Lewis. Her dominion became known as the House of God Which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth Without Controversy (Keith Dominion).

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_317.html

[adiaireton8]

You’ll have the answer to your question when you stand before Him.

Notice how your reply *avoids* answering the question. And if you don't know the answer, then you are being presumptuous and reckless when you say things like, "The RCC is an apostate church and the Pope is without any authority what-so-ever." (#153)

If the Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded, and Peter is the rock upon which Christ is building His Church, then when you stand before God you’ll have to answer to Him for publicly maligning His Church and His appointed authority, and for possibly misleading others by speaking such words while not even knowing how to determine who has "God's interpretation".

-A8

[blue-duncan]

“Are you suggesting Jesus lied when He named Simon “Rock”?”

No, what Jesus was saying was on the revelation to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, upon that foundation, He would build His church, not on the impulsive, ever changing Peter.

Now, who is the “great rock” that cast its shadow over the weary land? (Isaiah 32:2) (Matt. 11:28)

[adiaireton8]

Actually, you could use a few more Greek lessons. Then you would understand the difference between a small stone (Peter) and a massive boulder (the rock on which Christ church is built.)

That's the most common exegetical mistake regarding this verse. It fails to recognize that when put into Greek the feminine 'petra' had to be changed to the masculine 'petros' when applied to Simon (because he was a male) . In the original Aramaic, which Jesus used when speaking to Peter, it was "You are Rock [Kepha] and upon this rock [kepha] I will build my Church", with no gender difference. That is one reason why it is a mistake to *assume* that the gender difference in Greek implies a referential or semantic difference.

Another reason is shown in the other things Jesus says. When Simon is the first to declare who Jesus is, Jesus responds by declaring who Simon is. This is an exchange of revelations of identity. Simon tells Jesus that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God". Jesus responds by telling Simon that the Father revealed this to Simon. Then Jesus, also by the revelation of the Father, shows that through Simon's revelation, the Father has chosen Simon to be the steward of Christ's kingdom, as we see just below, when Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven -- cf. Isaiah 22:22). Jesus then changes Simon's name to Peter, and as you know, this has a spiritual significance. In the Bible whenever God changes a person's name, He is giving them a new identity. In changing Simon's name, from Simon, to Peter, He was revealing Peter's new role, as the rock upon which the Church is built.

So after Peter (by the gift of the Father) has revealed Jesus's identity, Jesus replies by revealing Peter's identity. Jesus sayd, "And I say to you that you [emphasized in Greek] are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." This parallelism confirms that it is Peter that is the rock. Protestants force the passage to say what it doesn't say, either by claiming that Peter's confession is the rock (when that is never called a rock), or that Jesus is the rock, when that is not part of the context of the passage, nor does it fit with the structure of the passage. What *is* explicitly called a rock in this passage is *Peter*. And that is the natural, unforced exegesis of the passage, for all the reasons I have given above. And that is also how all the Church understood the passage for 1500 years, even the Orthodox.

The fact that Jesus is going to build His Church on Peter is confirmed again by what Jesus says next: "I will give to you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you [singular] shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you [singular] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What Jesus does in giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter only makes sense when you understand that Jesus had just made Peter the rock upon which He would build His Church. Even when Jesus gives this power of binding and loosing to the other Apostles in Matt 18, He does not give to them the keys. They possess this power only in virtue of their communion with Peter, the steward of the Household of Christ.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

See my comments in post #169.

-A8

[blue-duncan]

I read your post but follow your argument to its logical conclusion and the church that Peter would have built would look like the Jerusalem church, even after receiving a vision and a word from God what its true nature was. It was Paul who understood what the church should be and wrote what its true foundation is, not Peter. Peter says he was just a pastor like the other pastors and Jesus is the chief Sheperd, not Peter.

You didn’t answer the question, “who is the “great rock” that cast its shadow over the weary land?” (Isaiah 32:2)

[adiaireton8]

but follow your argument to its logical conclusion and the church that Peter would have built would look like the Jerusalem church, even after receiving a vision and a word from God what its true nature was.

How does that follow? The Church that Peter built can be seen in first century Jerusalem, Antioch (where Peter ordained Evodius as its first bishop, and Ignatius its second bishop), Rome (which Peter refers to as Babylon in 1 Pet 5:13), and Alexandria (where Peter sent Mark from Rome).

You didn’t answer the question, “who is the “great rock” that cast its shadow over the weary land?” (Isaiah 32:2)

Why do you think that the noun in a simile must have an additional actual referent? The king and his princes will be "like the shade of a great rock in a parched land". If I had to speculate, I would say that it refers to the kingdom of God, according to Daniel 2:35.

-A8

[blue-duncan]

“How does that follow?”

Gal. 2:7-16, “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Peter was sent to the Jews, Paul was sent to the Gentiles. Peter is not mentioned as the pastor of the Jerusalem church.

“The Church that Peter built can be seen in first century Jerusalem, Antioch (where Peter ordained Evodius as its first bishop, and Ignatius its second bishop)”

Where do you find that Peter had anything to do with the church at Antioch? It was started by christians (obeying the Great Commission) displaced by the Stephen persecution who started the church and Barnabas, who was sent by the Jerusalem church to make sure it was legitimate, and then by Paul, who was the teacher. The only time Peter is mentioned in connection with an Antioch church is when he is accused by Paul of Judaic hypocrisy.

[adiaireton8]

Where do you find that Peter had anything to do with the church at Antioch?

Read your own post: "But when Peter came to Antioch ..."

:-) It is as if you read the Bible with blinders on.

-A8

[blue-duncan]

“:-) It is as if you read the Bible with blinders on.”

You must have missed the last sentence of my reply.

“The only time Peter is mentioned in connection with an Antioch church is when he is accused by Paul of Judaic hypocrisy.”

[adiaireton8]

I didn't miss that sentence. But that sentence makes hash of your question (in the same post) asking what Peter had to do with Antioch. If you have ever been to Israel, you know that you don't travel from Jerusalem to Antioch just to stay a few days. The fathers tell us that Peter led the church at Anitioch, and ordained its first bishop Evodius. Peter is thought to have stayed there up to two years in the early 40s, and possibly revisited in the 50s.

-A8

[blue-duncan]

“The fathers tell us that Peter led the church at Anitioch, and ordained its first bishop Evodius. Peter is thought to have stayed there up to two years in the early 40s, and possibly revisited in the 50s”

That “history” does not agree with the scriptures. Acts 11:26-28 says the church at Antioch sent Barnabas to Tarsus to bring back Paul. This was around the time the prophet Agabus prophesied that there would be a drought during the time of Clausius which began around 41 A.D., before James was martyred 42 A.D. Acts 12:20 says Herod died and historians set the date at 44 A.D. around the time Paul and Barnabas are returning from Jerusalem with John Mark after bringing stores for the drought stricken church at Jerusalem.

Between the time Paul was brought to Antioch (41 A.D.) and the time he and Barnabas were commissioned to go on the first mission trip (46 A.D.), he taught at Antioch. Peter is not mentioned as a leader of the church nor is there mention of a “Bishop” in the list of leaders in Acts 13:1 when they were commissioned (46 A.D.).

Paul returned to his home church at Antioch after the first mission trip, around 51 A.D. and Gal. 2:11 says Peter did visit the church and caused problems because of his Judaic hypocrisy. He created enough of a problem so that Paul and Barnabas took it to the Apostles, Pastors and the Jerusalem church around 52 A.D and it was Judas and Silas who brought the letter back to Antioch.

Acts 15:35-36 says Paul and Barnabas continued to teach at Antioch many days after until Paul’s second missionary journey (53 A.D.) He returns to Antioch (Acts 18:22) from his second missionary journey (56 A.D.) to report and immediately starts on his third journey.

Paul says he doesn’t build on another's foundation, so where besides Peter’s dissembling in Galatians 2 is there any mention in the scriptures that Peter was at Antioch and where in the time line could he have been there and done the things that the “fathers” said he did? Luke has given us the salient facts of the church at Antioch during Paul’s time and the most telling is Acts 13:1 around 46 A.D where he lists the leaders of the church and it sounds like a church without a leader but with many teachers. At that date there is no Bishop and when Peter came to the church in 51-52 A.D. he is afraid of those from his home church. He displays no leadership or headship over the Antioch church like he would have had he appointed a Bishop over the church. In fact, Paul would have had trouble exerting the leadership he did had there been a Bishop or even a Pastor over the church.

[adiaireton8]

That “history” does not agree with the scriptures.

Sure it does. Nothing in the verses you listed contradicts what I said. Your argument is flawed in two ways. First, it is based on arguments from silence regarding Peter's presence and role in Antioch. (You are still functioning in the 'sola scriptura' mode: 'if it is not stated in Scripture, then it isn't true'). You write:

so where besides Peter’s dissembling in Galatians 2 is there any mention in the scriptures

That's a 'sola scriptura' question.

Then you write:

Luke has given us the salient facts of the church at Antioch

That's a 'sola scriptura' assumption.

At that date there is no Bishop

Another 'sola scriptura' claim based on an argument from silence.

He displays no leadership or headship over the Antioch church

Another 'sola scriptura' argument from silence.

In fact, Paul would have had trouble exerting the leadership he did had there been a Bishop or even a Pastor over the church.

You apparently don't understand the difference in authority between an Apostle and a bishop.

Second, you are assuming that because Paul says "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation.", therefore Paul would not have taught in Antioch if Peter had laid a foundation there. But that twists the verse into saying much more than it says. Paul isn't saying that he never builds on another Apostle's foundation, but only that he prefers to preach where Christ is not yet known. We *know* of cases where Paul taught where other Apostles had gone before (e.g. Jerusalem). So this is no reason to assume that Peter did not teach in Antioch for some bit of time in the early 40s, and appoint presbyters (including bishop Evodius) at this time.

-A8