Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CynicalBear
You were doing great... until you wrote this:

He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.

There are a number of problems with this... and it all goes back to the problem of the article in question... Sola Scriptura. Your interpretation is entirely at odds with everyone else's who has challenged me on this thread... and, frankly, at odds with about every theologian I can think of--Catholic or Protestant.

The first reference to "rock" is the first time Christ has called him "Peter" or "rock". Christ isn't simply acknowledging him (Like... Hey, Joe!), He is calling Peter to a higher purpose.

The second reference to "rock" isn't referencing our Heavenly Father. You could make the case that it's referencing Christ Himself... but that isn't supported by the context either. Most who oppose the Catholic view see it as strictly Peter's confession of faith and Peter receives no higher calling here.

Here's the problem with the Protestant interpretation... Jesus spoke Aramaic with His Apostles, not Greek. In the Aramaic, "rock" is kipha and there is no other word for it. So, the original text actually calls Peter "kipha" and Christ follows it that upon this "kipha" He will build His Church. The Catholic view is that the "rock" is both Peter in the physical sense and his confession in the metaphysical sense.

112 posted on 02/08/2011 7:41:03 PM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]


To: pgyanke
>>Jesus spoke Aramaic with His Apostles, not Greek. In the Aramaic, "rock" is kipha and there is no other word for it.<<

Been there done that. Neither interpretation is correct as neither interpretation fits with the rest of scripture. The whole male, female argument doesn’t hold water. Throughout scripture it is made clear that the Rock is God (Jesus is God) and that one verse doesn’t deter from that. The verse that is used to establish Peter as the rock that the church is built on has no other support in scripture but Jesus being the Rock does. To replace Jesus as the Rock with Peter is totally against scripture.

117 posted on 02/08/2011 8:10:07 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: pgyanke
>>So which Israel would that be?<<

Deuteronomy 7:6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

>> Come to think of it, very few people on this earth belief that Israel has a "right" to the land.<<

Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

1 Chronicles 16:14-18 "He is The Lord our God; His judgments are in all the earth. He is mindful of His covenant for ever, of the word that He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, His sworn promise to Isaac, which He confirmed as a statute to Jacob, as an everlasting covenant to Israel, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan, as your portion for an inheritance."

Rom 11:25 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Ezek 39:28 "Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind."

Even when the Israelites disobeyed God (as they very often did), and He punished them for it by sometimes sending them into exile, they always came back, according to God's Will, whether it was in the ancient time of the return from the Babylonian exile, or the establishment of the modern-day state of Israel (primarily by the people of Judah, one of the twelve tribes) in 1948 or the yet future greater return. And, every time, the same warning applied, and applies - God commanded the Israelites to take what was theirs, the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not the land of "Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael”), all of it (no "West Banks" or "East Jerusalems" etc.), without compromise, or suffer terrorist attacks and political mayhem within their own God-commanded borders from people who had no God-given lawful right to be there.

125 posted on 02/08/2011 8:41:17 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | 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