Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers

I dunno...

I can see that it makes sense to not be Peter but either his profession or Christ. Besides, Peter referred to Jesus as the rock in his letter, I Peter. I don’t see that anywhere in Scripture that the rock means anything but God/Jesus. Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t recall it.

Nevertheless, even if it is Peter, I agree that someone took it too far and abused it to justify the papacy and establish the authority of the Roman Catholic church.


5,661 posted on 09/16/2010 1:09:26 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5660 | View Replies ]


To: metmom; Mr Rogers
I can see that it makes sense to not be Peter but either his profession or Christ. Besides, Peter referred to Jesus as the rock in his letter, I Peter. I don’t see that anywhere in Scripture that the rock means anything but God/Jesus. Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t recall it.

Prior to this time there is NOTHING to indicate that Peter (Petros, Cephas, etc.) had EVER been used as the name of a person. Had our Lord looked at Simon and said, "you are George and on this rock I will build my Church," nobody would have wondered. But the fact remains that He changed his name to Peter and either He was referring to Simon Peter in that verse or He intentionally said something that would long be misunderstood and He would have no reason to do that.

Keep in mind that EVERY time God changed a person's name in the Bible it was accompanied by a significant new leadership role. God only changed ONE name in the New Testament and that was Peter.

5,670 posted on 09/16/2010 1:43:57 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5661 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson