Posted on 03/08/2015 10:34:58 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that. (Exo 17:6 KJV) Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus. (John 7:38 KJV) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man. When it refers to a spiritual meaning, the word ROCK is used to describe God as creator or Saviour! IT IS NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE A MAN! (Deu 32:1 KJV) Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. (Deu 32:2 KJV) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: (Deu 32:3 KJV) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. (Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Who is the ROCK? God is, He is our support, our Saviour, our Creator.NOT A MAN. (Deu 32:18 KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. GOD is the ROCK, the Creator, not a man. (Deu 32:30 KJV) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? (Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. Who is the ROCK? It is GOD, not a man! (1 Sam 2:2 KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. Who is the ROCK? It is not a man, it is GOD! (2 Sam 22:2 KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; (2 Sam 22:3 KJV) The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. Who is the ROCK? It is GOD. NOT a sinful man who denied his God, but GOD Himself. Peter is NO ONE'S shield. Peter is NO ONE'S high tower. Peter is NO ONE'S refuge. and Peter is NO ONE'S Saviour! To say anything like those statements are true of a sinful man is blasphemy. Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.
Here is what it says::
(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
What was the original topic of discussion?
(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Jesus asked,
That was the topic of discussion.
What was the response?
(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.
So, what was the next sentence?
(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.
Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.
However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.
It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.
In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?
Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.
That was what He just said!
We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:
(Mat 16:17 KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus explains that Peter's revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.
What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.
What information?
That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
That is the point.
What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.
(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?
17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].
18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].
18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]
Peter = 4074 petroj Petros pet'-ros apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162 Peter = "a rock or a stone" 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
rock = 4073 petra petra pet'-ra from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f AV - rock 16; 16 1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone 1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text. Because of all the previous uses of the word ROCK to describe the attributes of God as Creator, Deliverer, Saviour, to ascribe those attributes to a man, that is a total misunderstanding of Scripture.
Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.
That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!
The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.
Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!
Notice what is said in this passage::
(Mat 7:24 KJV) Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
(Mat 7:25 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.
If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.
If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?
It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.
That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter's declaration.
This is repeated in more detail in Luke:: (Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.
So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?
Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?
This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.
Paul wrote in Romans 9:: (Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.
(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Who is the ROCK? It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.
There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.
(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(Gal 2:12 KJV) 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.
(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
(Gal 2:14 KJV) 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?
If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?
Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!
The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!
Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!
(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::
(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.
PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.
(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.
(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
WHO WAS?? Paul was!!
(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?
Paul is! NOT Peter, every time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.
Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.
In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES! (Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. (Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? (Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister. Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. (Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. (Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Strengthened who? PETER?? NO! Paul!
The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.
That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.
(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.
It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: 48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.
What did Paul say about building upon a MAN'S foundational work?
(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul's work in Rome.
(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.
(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.
(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
(Gal 2:9 KJV) 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.
And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::
(Gal 2:9 KJV) 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.
Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!
Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.
There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter's supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical. You also just showed you do not know your Bible when you said this: Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. Well, just what was Jesus doing here in this collection of verses then, if not using SCRIPTURE as the final authority on faith and morals? (Mat 12:3 KJV) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; (Mat 12:5 KJV) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? (Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Mat 21:16 KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? (Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (Mat 22:31 KJV) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, (Mark 2:25 KJV) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? (Mark 12:10 KJV) And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: (Mark 12:26 KJV) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? (Luke 4:16 KJV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. (Luke 6:3 KJV) And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; Jesus used Scriptue to defeat Satan, not the teachings of the Synagogue, nor the teachings of a future Church that we are disputing about: (Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Mat 4:7 KJV) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Mat 4:10 KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Paul's statement of the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 is NOT the subject of what you claimed, either: (1 Tim 3:15 KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth, and it is the SPIRITUAL Church that it is referring to, not any physical building, nor a any sinful man's creation of a denomination.
Grow up and catch up with my other posts.
Nothing in your previous posts prove Matthew was originally penned in Aramaic or Hebrew. It’s all speculation.
Linus was made a Bishop by the Apostles, which was the leader of a local congregation.
Somewhere down the road the Catholic church decided the head of the church would be the “Bishop of Rome”.
I agree that Linus was only the leader of the episcopate of Rome at the time of Peter’s death. I also agree that it was somewhere down the road that the Bishop of Rome was given primacy. My point was in response to your statement that Linus claimed to be the head of the Church. I am not aware of there being anything in the historical record that shows that Linus claimed anything; that we really don’t know anything about him.
Again, from the source:
“Matthew, was originally written in Aramaic.
Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century.
Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek.
Most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in Greek. Aramaic was their spoken language.
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—
John 1:42— also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said
‘So you are Simon the son of John?
You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.”
There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point.
Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (”you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.”
There is not proof that Papias said that and Irenaeus was simply repeating hearsay.
>>Most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in Greek. Aramaic was their spoken language.<<
Koine Greek was the common language and had been for hundreds of years. Besides, once again your comment only proves it's "speculation".
>>There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.<<
Except the Holy Spirit which Jesus said would "bring to your remembrance all that I have said" inspired it to be written in Greek. The Greek DOES make a distinction. I don't suppose you think the Holy Spirit made a mistake do you?
>>[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (”you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.”<<
But the Holy Spirit had it written in Greek and God chose to have it preserved in Greek and in Greek the distinction is made. I'll defer to the Holy Spirit and understand the difference in meaning was significant and for a reason.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states:
“In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…
” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry.
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
Dude! Show me the Hebrew that is older than the Greek God preserved for us today. If you can't it's just like the Muslims claiming Jesus is just a prophet and the Mormons saying He was Satan's brother. Claims of deniers who refuse to follow what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written and preserved.
>>Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.<<
Yeah, that's why Strong, Thayer and all others prove there IS a difference. Different spelling should give some hint don't you think?
“Strong, Thayer and all others prove”
Bull!
Prove it!
Yup. The same incorrect source.
Hoss
You say “Bull!”
You disprove it.
Hoss
Well, no it doesn’t work like that.
I’m not moving from proving my source to disproving yours.
The simple fact is you guys didn’t find the need for this shared for 1600 years.
As for more proof for my case, my source again cites a Protestant source:
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . .
Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . .
The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . .
For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . .
To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
>>Prove it?<<
Greek - Πέτρος - Petros - 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway.
[http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm]
Greek - πέτρᾳ - petra - 4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock," which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is "a detached stone or boulder"
4073 (petra) is "a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw" (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
[http://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm]
Evidently they think if they repeat it often enough it is no longer error or something. I think it’s what happens when they remove scripture as the supreme authority. Authority becomes whoever agrees with them.
Read post #172 for an accurate interpretation.
Your source is bias, late, and wrong.
Just remember: your "church" is claiming its "foundation" to be a fallen sinner Christ himself admonished as 'Satan' --
Yet, for being fallen, his statement of FAITH is the foundation of Christ's church... believers saved by grace through faith alone... as was Peter.
Say whatever you like -- The Roman Catholic Cult is and will always be a cult.
I cannot take seriously any so-called 'church' that teaches that Catholics and Mohammedans worship the same god... and since that's what your 'church' teaches, anything else that that comes from that sewer is just that... filthy lies.
Check your catechism. I'm not saying it to say it... it's what your church teaches and what faithful Catholics are supposed to believe.
So, keep telling me about how Peter is THE Rock and this verse 'proves' the Papacy.... and I'll continue to know the true 'source' of the lies that are parroted by, sadly, so very many.
Hoss
Um...dude! How much of this guys stuff do you believe?
"He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis and an open anti-Semite.' [ Ericksen, Robert P. 1987. Theologians Under Hitler. Yale University Press.]
"In May 1933 he joined the National Socialist German Workers Party." [Robert P. Ericksen, "Theologian in the Third Reich: The Case of Gerhard Kittel", Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 12, Number 3, July 1977, p. 596]
"He had had no previous involvement in politics but called the Nazi Party "a voelkisch renewal movement on a Christian, moral foundation". [Ericksen, "Theologian in the Third Reich", p.599]
"In a lecture of June 1933 Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question), that soon appeared in print, he spoke for the stripping of citizenship from German Jews, their removal from medicine, law, teaching, and journalism, and to forbid marriage or sexual relations with non-Jews - thus anticipating by two years the Nazi government, which introduced its Nuremberg Racial Laws and took away Jewish rights of German citizenship, in 1935. [Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust, p.32]
This is the guy you think "got it right" interpreting scripture? You call him "most respected"? Really?
Oh, and your "Protestant" Dr. Oscar Cullman? Let's look how "Protestant" he was.
"Because of his intense ecumenical work, Cullmann's Basel colleague Karl Barth joked with him that his tombstone would bear the inscription "advisor to three popes." He was invited to be an observer at the Second Vatican Council." [Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005, article Cullmann, Oscar]
I'm not impressed Larry.
The more I learn of that "church" the more appalled I get. And check out my last post on the guy he calls a "respected source".
Sorry -- I already KNOW the truth -- Christ, and him alone.
My reference was to remarks made TO me by Catholic cultists who claimed (erroneously) that references to the Trinity weren't in the Bible. I know it is; I was remarking to the ignorance of that particular poster about that one issue that seems to spread to other Catholic cultists about other issues of scripture.
Who spoke Latin in the Dark Ages? Franks? Germans? Really? Nice try but fail.
we follow the Magisterium...
Q.E.D. Cult. Catholics follow fallible men -- the Magisterium -- why not Christ?
I will never be "open" to the false gospel that is Roman Catholicism.
You mentioned "completeness" and not needing to find it. Please explain then why Rome teaches that Roman Catholics and Mohammedans worship the same god? Please explain why Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary is a "mediatrix" when Christ CLEARLY and SUCCINCTLY states that no one comes to the Father except THROUGH him? And the Holy Spirit, through Paul, confirms this when he says, "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"?
Is that "complete"? To me, it seems to find Roman Catholicism's cult wanting.
Hoss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.