Jesus Christ is the Rock. not peter

[Cockcrow]

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Deuteronomy 32:4 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. Psalms 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. 1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 7:24-27

24 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:

25 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.

26 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:

27 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.

My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus Blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name. On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand, All other ground is sinking sand.

If you were to die today are you 100% sure that you would go to heaven? The bible says that we can know that we have eternal life by believing in Lord Jesus Christ alone. How you to go to heaven when you die:

 

[Dan Perez]

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Deuteronomy 32:4 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. Psalms 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. 1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 7:24-27

24 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:

25 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.

26 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:

27 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.

My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus Christ, my righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name. On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand, All other ground is sinking sand.

If you were to die today are you 100% sure that you would go to heaven? The bible says that we can know that we have eternal life by believing in Lord Jesus Christ alone. How you to go to heaven when you die:

And I Peter debunks what many say that Peter is the ROCK and that means the EKKLESIA and this Greek means

EK means OUT OF !!

KLESIA means A CALLING and does NOT mean CHURCH . PERIOD !!

EKKLESIA means ASSEMBLY !!

And in 1 Peter 2:7 proves who the ROCK really is !!


1 Peter 2:7 says THE STONE // LITHOS , is a noun , is a ACCUSTIVE CASE , in the Greek SINGULAR , meaning there is only ONE STONE .

WHICH // HOS is a Greek RELATIVE PRONOUN , in the Greek ACCUSATIVE CASE , SINGLUAR , meaning that there is ONLY ONE STONE .

THE BUILDERS // OIKODOMEO , and these builders were called ISRAEL .

DISALLOWED // OKIMAZO , G3618 ,

dan p

IS MADE // GINOMAI , in the AORIST TENSE , in the PASSIVE VOICE , in the INDICATIVE MOOD , meaning yopu better elieve it
The HEAD // KEPHALE , meaning JESUS , in the ACCUSATIVE CASE , means it is limited to JESUS CHRIST in the SLINGULAR

OF THE CORNER // GONIA in the GENITIVE CASE and in the SINGULAR .

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

In the general account the orthodox use to claim Peter and apostolic succession, Peter speaks a truth. Jesus says that truth came from God. AND in his next breath, Peter has Satan speaking through him.

And they use this, Satan speaking through Peter as a claim of Peter/apostolic succession? That is truly laughable.

What did happen, if the reader is connecting the dots here is Mark 4:15

Peter was used to show the principle and fact of Mark 4:15 just as plain as day. And yes, that does happen to all of us as well.

When we "fall" upon the rock we are broken, divided from our adversary. But that rock sure wasn't Peter, but Christ

Matt. 21
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Part 1-People
Part 2-the Devil

Both sides of the equation are true for us, just as it was true for Peter

Part of being saved is that we are broken from our adversary who prior blinded us to that adversary, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2

And we are all waiting on that last part, even participating after a fashion, in carrying that adversary and his workings to our own dusty graves

 

[tdidymas]

When Jesus said "you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church (ekklēsia)," He was speaking a figure of speech, which He often did, and which caused some confusion for the disciples because they wanted clear literal language. It's a play on words (petros vs. petra), which is also masculine form vs. feminine form. This kind of figure of speech has been historically misunderstood, just like "This is My body" has been historically misunderstood.

So the real question is, what was Jesus referring to by "this rock" - which rock? There have been 3 proposed so far:
1. to Peter, as implied by the similarity between petros and petra. In this case, the meaning is implied "upon you, Peter, I will build My church" - this is the millennia-old interpretation, not often questioned. Yet, why the feminine form? Can anyone give examples of any figure like this where the feminine form is used for the identical thing after the masculine form is used? If not, then this interpretation's validity must be questioned.

2. to Jesus, since "rock" refers to the Messiah or God mostly in scripture. The implied meaning is "upon Myself I will build My church." So it begs the question, does any male person in scripture use a figure in the feminine form to refer to himself? If so, then this would be strong evidence for this interpretation.

3. to Peter's statement "You are the Christ." The implied meaning is, "Upon your confession I will build My church." I've read arguments for this, but I still don't get it. I need to see examples of figures in scripture where it's referring to something earlier in a conversation. It doesn't appear to me that exegetical commentaries show that. If other examples in scripture are shown to contain figures in feminine form referring to statements, this would be enough evidence.

Does anyone have Biblical references answering any of these?

 

[Dan Perez]

In the general account the orthodox use to claim Peter and apostolic succession, Peter speaks a truth. Jesus says that truth came from God. AND in his next breath, Peter has Satan speaking through him.

And they use this, Satan speaking through Peter as a claim of Peter/apostolic succession? That is truly laughable.

What did happen, if the reader is connecting the dots here is Mark 4:15

Peter was used to show the principle and fact of Mark 4:15 just as plain as day. And yes, that does happen to all of us as well.

When we "fall" upon the rock we are broken, divided from our adversary. But that rock sure wasn't Peter, but Christ

Matt. 21
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Part 1-People
Part 2-the Devil

Both sides of the equation are true for us, just as it was true for Peter

Part of being saved is that we are broken from our adversary who prior blinded us to that adversary, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 3:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2

And we are all waiting on that last part, even participating after a fashion, in carrying that adversary and his workings to our own dusty graves

And when you look up what EKKLESIA really means in VINE 'S DICTIONARY means , but VINE'S does NOT have what

so-called word called Church will never be found , but EK means OUT OF

KLESIA mean A CALLING , and EKKLESIA means an ASSEMBLY , so look it up and see , do not take my word !!

dan p

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

And when you look up what EKKLESIA really means in VINE 'S DICTIONARY means , but VINE'S does NOT have what

so-called word called Church will never be found , but EK means OUT OF

KLESIA mean A CALLING , and EKKLESIA means an ASSEMBLY , so look it up and see , do not take my word !!

dan p

What are we called out of Dan?

 

[jas3]

So the real question is, what was Jesus referring to by "this rock" - which rock? There have been 3 proposed so far:
1. to Peter, as implied by the similarity between petros and petra. In this case, the meaning is implied "upon you, Peter, I will build My church" - this is the millennia-old interpretation, not often questioned. Yet, why the feminine form? Can anyone give examples of any figure like this where the feminine form is used for the identical thing after the masculine form is used? If not, then this interpretation's validity must be questioned.

The "feminine form" was used because the word πέτρα is feminine. In gendered languages like Greek, nouns have a specific gender. There is no "masculine form" of πέτρα in normal Greek because the word is feminine, just like there's no feminine (or neuter) form of λόγος. Names are an exception to this rule, where the name almost always matches the person's gender.

For example, the Greek for "God's gift" is Θεοῦ δῶρον (it would appear differently in actual written text, but this is how the name is constructed). This is pronounced "theou-doron," from which we get the names Theodore (Theodoros in Greek) and Theodora. Now, "doron" is a neuter word, but "Theodoros" and "Theodora" are masculine and feminine, respectively. Even though there's no such thing as the "masculine form" or "feminine form" of "doron," it's easy enough to switch out the ending and construct such forms when needed for a name. That's what's happening in Matthew 16:18.

I will also add that the three interpretations you have pointed out all have ancient attestation from the Church Fathers; Peter being the rock is one historical interpretation of this verse, but certain fathers identified the rock with Jesus or Peter's confession of faith (St. Augustine, for example, proposed all three as possible readings). So option 1 is not uniquely old, and options 2 and 3 are not uniquely new. My understanding is that these interpretations weren't typically seen as being in conflict, since the metaphor could be multivalent.

 

[Dan Perez]

What are we called out of Dan?

And here is just one that we are called out to be in 1 Cor 3:5-p , are called out to be Farmers .

In 1 Cor 11:1 called to be IMITATORS of Paul !!

Learn how to Judge as written in 1 Cor 5;1-13

Because we will have to judge Christ's UNIVERSE and judge angels .

dan p

 

[tdidymas]

The "feminine form" was used because the word πέτρα is feminine. In gendered languages like Greek, nouns have a specific gender. There is no "masculine form" of πέτρα in normal Greek because the word is feminine, just like there's no feminine (or neuter) form of λόγος. Names are an exception to this rule, where the name almost always matches the person's gender.

What kind of drivel is this? The form of the noun is determined by its ending, no? -os for masculine, -a for feminine. The author is the one who decided to use which form in both cases. So why not answer my question as I posed it?

For example, the Greek for "God's gift" is Θεοῦ δῶρον (it would appear differently in actual written text, but this is how the name is constructed). This is pronounced "theou-doron," from which we get the names Theodore (Theodoros in Greek) and Theodora. Now, "doron" is a neuter word, but "Theodoros" and "Theodora" are masculine and feminine, respectively. Even though there's no such thing as the "masculine form" or "feminine form" of "doron," it's easy enough to switch out the ending and construct such forms when needed for a name. That's what's happening in Matthew 16:18.

I will also add that the three interpretations you have pointed out all have ancient attestation from the Church Fathers; Peter being the rock is one historical interpretation of this verse, but certain fathers identified the rock with Jesus or Peter's confession of faith (St. Augustine, for example, proposed all three as possible readings). So option 1 is not uniquely old, and options 2 and 3 are not uniquely new. My understanding is that these interpretations weren't typically seen as being in conflict, since the metaphor could be multivalent.

There is no need for responding unless you intend to answer my questions.

 

[jas3]

What kind of drivel is this?

That's not a very Christlike way to start your response.

The form of the noun is determined by its ending, no? -os for masculine, -a for feminine.

That depends on what you mean by "form." "Form" isn't a precise word when it comes to Greek grammar - the word you seem to be looking for is "gender." Nouns have gender, case, and number. Those are the only "forms" they can take. Nouns are masculine or feminine, but the cases where a noun may have multiple genders are generally limited to occupations/roles that could be done by a man or a woman, or poetic uses where words are "played with" to get the meter or other qualities the poet wants. In normal, standard Greek, when referring to the overwhelming majority of nouns, of which πέτρα is a part, the gender is fixed. Also, it's much more complex than "-os for masculine, -a for feminine," but for the particular case of πέτρα we can limit the available endings to those two.

The author is the one who decided to use which form in both cases. So why not answer my question as I posed it?

Your question is fundamentally flawed and betrays a lack of understanding of very basic foreign language skills. This is an easy deficiency to overcome; reading the first chapter or two of any introductory Greek or Latin textbook should clear things up.

 

[The Liturgist]

The "feminine form" was used because the word πέτρα is feminine. In gendered languages like Greek, nouns have a specific gender. There is no "masculine form" of πέτρα in normal Greek because the word is feminine, just like there's no feminine (or neuter) form of λόγος. Names are an exception to this rule, where the name almost always matches the person's gender.

For example, the Greek for "God's gift" is Θεοῦ δῶρον (it would appear differently in actual written text, but this is how the name is constructed). This is pronounced "theou-doron," from which we get the names Theodore (Theodoros in Greek) and Theodora. Now, "doron" is a neuter word, but "Theodoros" and "Theodora" are masculine and feminine, respectively. Even though there's no such thing as the "masculine form" or "feminine form" of "doron," it's easy enough to switch out the ending and construct such forms when needed for a name. That's what's happening in Matthew 16:18.

I will also add that the three interpretations you have pointed out all have ancient attestation from the Church Fathers; Peter being the rock is one historical interpretation of this verse, but certain fathers identified the rock with Jesus or Peter's confession of faith (St. Augustine, for example, proposed all three as possible readings). So option 1 is not uniquely old, and options 2 and 3 are not uniquely new. My understanding is that these interpretations weren't typically seen as being in conflict, since the metaphor could be multivalent.

That is correct.

I would also note basis for the name Simon took, Cephas, in Aramaic, or its Hellenic form Petros, Anglicized as Peter, is related to either himself or his faith the rock on which our Lord would build his Church, the word Church being the English translation of Ekklesia, which does mean assembly; I have no idea why people are saying “Ekklesia does not mean church, it means assembly!” - when Church is literally a translation, like the Dutch kerke or the Swedish kyrken or the Scots kirk, of the word “Ecclesia” which does indeed mean Assembly, hence the word “Ecclesiastical” referring to things pertaining to the Church and “Ecclesiology” as the area of theology that pertains to what the Church actually is (for example, Orthodox ecclesiology, the Local Church ecclesiology favored by Baptists and Congregationalists, among others, the Lutheran ecclesiology, the “Branch” ecclesiology popular among Anglicans, Assyrians, Armenians and Old Catholics like the Polish National Catholic Church (which are not Roman Catholic or in communion with the Pope - note @jas3 I assume you know that and am saying it for the benefit of other readers who might otherwise see the word “Catholic” and be confused) and the common Protestant “Invisible Church” ecclesiology, as well as the actual Roman Catholic Papal-centric ecclesiology).

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, our very pious and learned Baptist friend @Der Alte , if he feels up to it, should be able to clarify any misunderstanding over the Koine Greek, and hopefully since he is a Korean War veteran and an ordained Baptist minister, if he does contribute to this thread no one will dare to accuse him of posting “drivel”, and I do agree with you entirely @jas3 that that was greatly uncalled for. One of the things I love about the Traditional Theology forum is the relative lack of polemics on that subforum, particularly compared to CCT.

 

[jas3]

I have no idea why people are saying “Ekklesia does not mean church, it means assembly!” - when Church is literally a translation, like the Dutch kerke or the Swedish kyrken or the Scots kirk, of the word “Ecclesia” which does indeed mean Assembly, hence the word “Ecclesiastical” referring to things pertaining to the Church and “Ecclesiology” as the area of theology that pertains to what the Church actually is

It's a form of the etymological fallacy where they think of "church" as referring to a building or institution to the exclusion of the people and "assembly" as referring to the people to the exclusion of the institution.

I wonder what word they think the Greek Fathers were using when they talked about the Church in their writings.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's a form of the etymological fallacy where they think of "church" as referring to a building or institution to the exclusion of the people and "assembly" as referring to the people to the exclusion of the institution.

I wonder what word they think the Greek Fathers were using when they talked about the Church in their writings.

I think many people believe the false narrative propagated by the Restorationists that there was a Great Apostasy after the repose of the Holy Apostles (which is of course impossible, due to Matthew 16:18) and that the Roman Catholic Church controlled everything before the Reformation. And they are either unaware of the Orthodox or assume it is Catholic, or in some cases, regard it as Pagan, or even think we are Jewish because the word Orthodox is most commonly used in association with the more traditional form of Rabinnical Judaism (which is really a catch-all for all Jews who aren’t Reformed or Conservative or Masorti or Reconstructionist, or members of Karaite Judaism or the Beta Israel, that is to say, Ethiopian Judaism), although frequently it is used in a very negative way in reference to Chassidic Judaism, as if the various Chassidic dynasties are the extent of traditional Rabinnical Judaism… Of course Orthodox Christianity is not related to Orthodox Judaism any more than any other form of Christianity is related to any other form of Judaism, but many people don’t know this (indeed, the Messianic Jews are those most closely related to Rabinnical Judaism in its present form).*

* Except, of course, the churches with the largest numbers of members descended from the Jews of antiquity who embraced Christianity are the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian Church of the East (both in the Middle East and in Malankara, India, since St. Thomas spread the Christian faith throughout the Syriac Aramaic speaking world, along the Jewish trade route to India, converting Jews and Gentiles alike, and within the Mar Thoma Christians of India, also known as Nasranis, there is an endogamous group that is descended from 400 shipwrecked Jews who converted to Christianity after miraculously surviving their shipwreck), and the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which are mostly descended from the Beta Israel, and share with the Beta Israel the same Old Testament canon, and indeed, the Beta Israel liturgy looks like the Ethiopian Orthodox liturgy, except with an unfortunate animal sacrifice instead of the Eucharist being celebrated after the synaxis, and no reading of the Gospel - indeed even many of the vestments are identical, except the crosses are replaced with the Star of David), and there are also substantial numbers of Christians descended from the ancient Jews, and more recent converts, in the Greek Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Greece and the Church of Cyprus.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

And they are either unaware of the Orthodox or assume it is Catholic, or in some cases, regard it as Pagan, or even think we are Jewish because the word Orthodox is most commonly used in association with the more traditional form of Rabinnical Judaism (which is really a catch-all for all Jews who aren’t Reformed or Conservative or Masorti or Reconstructionist, or members of Karaite Judaism or the Beta Israel, that is to say, Ethiopian Judaism), although frequently it is used in a very negative way in reference to Chassidic Judaism, as if the various Chassidic dynasties are the extent of traditional Rabinnical Judaism… Of course Orthodox Christianity is not related to Orthodox Judaism any more than any other form of Christianity is related to any other form of Judaism, but many people don’t know this (indeed, the Messianic Jews are those most closely related to Rabinnical Judaism in its present form).*

* Except, of course, the churches with the largest numbers of members descended from the Jews of antiquity who embraced Christianity are the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian Church of the East (both in the Middle East and in Malankara, India, since St. Thomas spread the Christian faith throughout the Syriac Aramaic speaking world, along the Jewish trade route to India, converting Jews and Gentiles alike, and within the Mar Thoma Christians of India, also known as Nasranis, there is an endogamous group that is descended from 400 shipwrecked Jews who converted to Christianity after miraculously surviving their shipwreck), and the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which are mostly descended from the Beta Israel, and share with the Beta Israel the same Old Testament canon, and indeed, the Beta Israel liturgy looks like the Ethiopian Orthodox liturgy, except with an unfortunate animal sacrifice instead of the Eucharist being celebrated after the synaxis, and no reading of the Gospel - indeed even many of the vestments are identical, except the crosses are replaced with the Star of David), and there are also substantial numbers of Christians descended from the ancient Jews, and more recent converts, in the Greek Orthodox Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Greece and the Church of Cyprus.

Um....the Orthodox ARE Catholic, just not ROMAN catholic!

 

[The Liturgist]

Um....the Orthodox ARE Catholic!

Not only that, but insofar as the Eastern Orthodox are the church of what remained of the Roman Empire, and the Eastern Orthodox people of the Eastern Mediterranean are known as “Romiioi” in Greek and as “Rumi” in Arabic, meaning Romans, we are even Roman Catholic, insofar as the Byzantine Empire was the true Roman Empire, and its people were the Romans.

Rather, what I intended to convey, but neglected to do so with my usual degree of pedantry, which would have avoided confusion in this case, is that we are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church headed by Pope Francis, nor have we ever, contrary to what some Roman Catholics claim, been under the authority of the Pope of Rome. And insofar as we call Roman Catholics Roman Catholics, it is a courtesy title.

I suppose recent complaints by a couple of users that my posts are too long or too incomprehensible have somehow gotten to me subconsciously and caused me to reduce the pedantic precision that characterizes my posts, for example, I have lately referred to Bishops of Rome consecrated before the year 539 as “Pope”, even though they did not use that title (which was first used by the Bishops of Alexandria). I must resist this - since as I explained to one member, who was appreciative of my approach, the reason for writing lengthy and precise replies is to provide as clear and accurate information as possible.

I should also, in a bid to avoid repeating myself, resume my project of putting frequently used information in my CF.com blog, and then linking to that from posts, so I don’t have to constantly retype the entire history of, for example, the organization of the Scriptural canon in the 39th Paschal Encyclical of St. Athanasius. I had previously covered subjects like Alexandrian vs. Antiochene exegesis.

By the way I think we ought to collectively use the Blogs feature more, as it is useful, integrated into the forum directly, and we can link to it in our posts, and at least when I joined in 2019, there were fewer restrictions on the content of blogs and the links they could contain. The XenFora software is really rather nice in that it is more of a Content Management System than a forum.

 

[Valletta]

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Deuteronomy 32:4 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. Psalms 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. 1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 7:24-27

24 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:

25 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.

26 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:

27 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.

My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus Christ, my righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name. On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand, All other ground is sinking sand.

If you were to die today are you 100% sure that you would go to heaven? The bible says that we can know that we have eternal life by believing in Lord Jesus Christ alone. How you to go to heaven when you die:

"Rock" indeed was a word used to describe God many times in the Bible. That's why it is special and of great significance when Jesus renames Simon as "Rock." The renaming, which was immediately before Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22, was of a great magnitude in associating Rock (Peter) with God.

 

[Der Alte]

By the way, our very pious and learned Baptist friend @Der Alte , if he feels up to it, should be able to clarify any misunderstanding over the Koine Greek, and hopefully since he is a Korean War veteran and an ordained Baptist minister, if he does contribute to this thread no one will dare to accuse him of posting “drivel”, and I do agree with you entirely @jas3 that that was greatly uncalled for. One of the things I love about the Traditional Theology forum is the relative lack of polemics on that subforum, particularly compared to CCT.

You do err mon Frere. I am 100% disabled veteran of Viet Nam. I was about 12 years too young for Korea. I do have the 2 main Greek and Hebrew references in my personal library and can quote the full definition of any Hebrew or Greek word.

 

[The Liturgist]

You do err mon Frere. I am 100% disabled veteran of Viet Nam. I was about 12 years too young for Korea. I do have the 2 main Greek and Hebrew references in my personal library and can quote the full definition of any Hebrew or Greek word.

Forgive me my brother, I forgot how bad my memory is!

Bearing in mind that I am not Roman Catholic and am not looking to defend the Papacy, since my church has never excepted Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility which is why the Roman Catholics excommunicated us in 1054, and Venice with Papal blessing later invaded the Byzantine Empire in the fourth crusade about 150 years later, although in recent years we have improved relations, I do think that the claims made in post 2 of this thread Jesus Christ is the Rock. not peter is inaccurate based on my knowledge of Koine Greek and Byzantine Greek.

But since you know Koine Greek much better than I do, you would be in a position to evaluate those claims, and as a Baptist your analysis would hopefully be more respected, since people just assume we Orthodox are either under the control of the Pope or are otherwise people who can’t be trusted due to our embrace of various things that seem to be “popery.”

I should stress my doctrine isn’t threatened by the claims made in post no. 2, rather, I just want to get at an accurate translation so as to see if what @Dan Perez wrote is accurate or not - partially because I worry that my Greek skills like everything else are on the decline.

God bless you my friend.

 

[rturner76]

Here we go with this old "the Bible doesn't mean what it says" stuff. If Peter is not the Rock, why would Jesus rename him "Rock?" Then, why would he say this:

Matthew 16: 18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

No one can really wriggle out of what these two verses say. Unless one decides they will take what they want out of the Bible and drop what they don't agree with. The rest of us simply read the scripture without doing the mental gymnastics that end up making the faithful into people with good intentions who put their denomination before the scripture. With all of their best intentions, people end up being tricked into believing whatever they are told above what is written in the Bible