Jesus Christ is the Rock. not peter

Valletta said:

Yours is a misinterpretation. Jews before Jesus showed up did not go around calling each other Rock. Jesus renamed Simon.

Click to expand...

Did Yahshua want the Congregation to be built upon God The Rock, or Simon whom he called Peter?


Mark 3:16. NIV
These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter…

Mark 3:16. And Simon he called Peter.

Strong’s Greek. #1941, Epikaleoi: call-ed.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from epi and kaleó
Definition
to call upon
NASB Translation
address (1), appeal (2), appealed (4), call (7), called (14), calling (1), calls (1).

AKAE777 said:

The translation is not correct. Simon was called Peter before Christ meet him.

Simon called Peter
Matthew 4:18
[ The Calling of the First Disciples ] As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.

The correct translation is (called,) not (named.)

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Jesus was the one who "renamed" Simon to Peter/Cephas (John 1:42). The reason why Mat. 4:18 says "Simon called Peter" before meeting Jesus is to identify who the guy was, as opposed to some other Simon, which was a common name of the day. The NT was written long after Jesus "called" Simon Peter/Cephas (Peter is Latin for Petros, and Cephas is the Aramaic form). So the writer knew that Simon Barjonah was called Peter long before he wrote the text. In this context, "named" and "called" mean the same thing.

AKAE777 said:

Did Yahshua want the Congregation to be built upon God The Rock, or Simon whom he called Peter?

Click to expand...

Are you replying to someone?

tdidymas said:

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?

Click to expand...

I listen to a guy say that when Jesus gave that talk he was standing on a rock that faced the place that the Jews said was the gate to Sheol. He said Jesus was making a statement that “ on this rock I declare that I will build my gathering and the gates of Sheol will not prevail “ I don’t know if it’s true or not but interesting if it is.

Jeff Saunders said:

I listen to a guy say that when Jesus gave that talk he was standing on a rock that faced the place that the Jews said was the gate to Sheol. He said Jesus was making a statement that “ on this rock I declare that I will build my gathering and the gates of Sheol will not prevail “ I don’t know if it’s true or not but interesting if it is.

Click to expand...

A cave in Caesarea Philippi (Banias or Panias) in northern Israel at the foot of har Hermon, temple/grotto of Pan...pagan..."gate to hell or Hades"...

"Get thee behind me Satan"

In the "Peter Chronicles" there is a simple spiritual principle being shown and played out in Cephas/Peter.

The essential principle is found in Mark 4:15. First God's Word is sown. Then WHO follows after? Satan.

This exact principle is shown in Peter, a former blinded by SATAN person just like everyone else who suddenly has God's Light turned on from above and receives a NEW MAN name change. You know, first the natural man, Cephas, THEN the spiritually engaged man, the new man, Peter.

And what is the very first thing that happens after Peter gets the pat on the back from Jesus?

Uh huh. Instant derailment by our adversary, exactly as proposed by Jesus in Mark 4:15

It is upon this PRINCIPLE that we are both BORN AGAIN from above, are changed, and then we engage our ADVERSARY.

This is the principle upon which Jesus builds. It has universal applicability not only to Cephas/Peter, but to everyone who has experienced the principle, of experiencing the love of God in Christ and then having to face our ENEMY, the devil

Quite simple, once seen. And once seen there is no turning back. The enemy does come in like a flood. Bank on it to happen every time. Look around you in the believers arena. Our divisions are stacked up like broken branches, waiting for the fire

And that fire will come when the time is ripe

How long are we going to divide over these matters? Answer: TIL WE ALL SEE THAT IT'S FROM OUR ENEMY working from our own lips, just as it did with Peter. Not only in the episode in question, but even in Peter's TRIPLE DENIAL episode. Do you NOT SEE the ENEMY in those DENIALS? I mean seriously, God couldn't have scripted these things any clearer. Satan entered Judas. Same thing. Bells, bells, bells, belial bells.

IF you are still seeing only Peter and miss the other bad actor entirely or mix the two, Peter as Satan for example, as many a blind reader does, the hoodwink is still upon you.

And if we think that Peter is some kind of rock when we know full well WHO THE CHIEF CORNER STONE IS, well, that's just more bad acting by the chief bad actor in such. No offense to any person, mind you

Jeff Saunders said:

I listen to a guy say that when Jesus gave that talk he was standing on a rock that faced the place that the Jews said was the gate to Sheol. He said Jesus was making a statement that “ on this rock I declare that I will build my gathering and the gates of Sheol will not prevail “ I don’t know if it’s true or not but interesting if it is.

Click to expand...

Jesus spoke in parables often. He might have been referring to a literal rock, or pointing to a flower when He said, "behold the lilies of the field," but His meaning was always spiritual. So it would have been interesting, howbeit we should interpret His statement to mean He was really referring to Himself (not Peter). Still, narratives like "he was standing on this rock when he said that" come from traditions that don't have any basis in historical evidence, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

AKAE777 said:

Did Yahshua want the Congregation to be built upon God The Rock, or Simon whom he called Peter?

Click to expand...

Jesus left visible representatives headed by the Apostle Peter. He said you are my witnesses, go and convert the nations baptizing them in the name do the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Authority was vested by Christ in the Church, whom, Paul told Timothy, was the pillar and foundation of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15.
Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins. That power belongs to God alone and cannot be presumed for oneself. John 20:22-23.
He was obviously giving the Apostles the authority to act in His place. This is known as in personae Christi, as the person of Christ. This commission was ratified with tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost. Apostle means one who is sent. The Apostles were sent by Christ Himself and they passed their Apostolic Authority on to others by the laying on of hands. We have records of the direct line going back to Peter who spoke directly to Jesus.

If we take the position that the Church is invisible and that all believers possess the same authority as the apostles, then there is no teaching authority. Everyone will do what is right in his own eyes, just as they did before Noah’s flood. Jesus even compares the last days as the days of Noah.
The Ark of the covenant is Mary as described in Revelation 11:19-12:1. Also compare 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1. The Ark contained the Ten Commandments, manna and Aaron’s rod that budded. Within Mary was the Word of God, the bread of life and our great high priest.
Jesus tells us to become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Every child has a mother. Mary will prepare you to meet Jesus, just as Rebecca prepared Jacob to receive the blessing from Isaac. Becoming a child takes humility which is the primary virtue of a Christian.

As Jesus said, if any man come after me, let him deny his very self and begin to follow in my footsteps. Come home to the Ark, humble yourself and submit to the authority of the Apostles, who were formed by the will of God.
If you do not, to whom do you submit? To God or your own understanding? How do you know the difference?

Dan Perez said:

And in Matt 26:29 it reads , But I sat into you , I will NOT // ME is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE , that means, that

that I will drink henceforth of this fruit vine ( notice they did not drink his blood ) UNTIL I drink it new with you in my

Fathers kingdom !! PERIOD !!

dan p

Click to expand...

orry, I haven't been on the ite in quite a hile but I did pick up this response and I would like to add my opinion and what I have been taught through RCIA and the Bible. I realize that many Protetants disregard Catholic teaching. I wanted to go straight to The New Testament and post what it says about the Last Supper.

Luke 22:19-20 NABRE. Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

Matthew 26:26-29 NABRE​

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.​

I gue I have a hard time figuring out ho or here Jeus The Christ, son of God lied or misrepresented himself. My question to YOU is, isn't it better to read the New Testament and believe what is says or to over anylize the scripture to the point where it no longer means what it specifically says via ve "This is my body, this is my blood."

What I quoted that you posted talking about "disjunctive particle negative means that etc." Does that mean the text of the New Testament (which I assume you believe is Sola Scriptura) is somehow mistaken, misinterpreted, or mistranslated in terms of The actual Bible saying that the bread and the wine is his body and blood is somehow incorrect? If that is the case and it is your right to believe, perhaps you will be able to demonstrate how other parts of the Bible (Old or New Testament) dosen't actually mean what is written in black and white through thousands of different translations but it is somehowmade more clear by what you posted? May God bless you ad I for searching for the truth.

I guess when I responded to a post from long ago, I brought this topic back up to the top op "New Posts" or something like that. I have a paper Bible but I do some online searches when I can't remember chapter and verse of what I want to discuss. I admit to my lack of memorization of the Bible but I did find this......

Matthew 16:18

New American Bible (Revised Edition)

​

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,[a] and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

1. 16:18 You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kēpā’ meaning rock.

I have to ask myself how someone who believe in "Bible only" or "Sola Scripura" can believe in anything that the Bible does not say. It says Peter is the Rock. Why is that not understandable? It's a pretty simple statement.

Jesus Christ is known as the "cornerstone" or "capstone." That does not negate Peter's positions "The Rock I will build my church on."

I understand how Protestants want too consider Paul as the Rock. He wrote the most Epistles. However he only learned about Christ through visions and dreams. He did not sit at the foot of Christ and learn his teachings the same way that Simon-Perer, the first Desciple did. Paul is a great visionary, writer, and Apostle (Church Bulder) however, he is not the Rock of The Church or the cornerstone. Peter is the Rock. He went to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul was a Roman Jew hunter that was converted and went to the Gentiles, incorporating some of their practices with the Church. Peter kept the balance between the law and the redemption. Paul disregards the law. That doesn't make him a bad Apostle, but Protestants misinterpret his writings in a way that makes them believe that works are not the measure of faith in the way the St. James instructs us (the brother of Jesus).

ames 2:14-26

New American Bible (Revised Edition)

​

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? 17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 Indeed someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. 19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. 20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? 26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

As Paulians, do we disregard the scripture of the brother of Christ?

Once again, in our Sola Scripture it is written:
Obedience. 13 [f]Therefore, gird up the loins of your mind,[g] live soberly, and set your hopes completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 Like obedient children, do not act in compliance with the desires of your former ignorance[h] 15 but, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, 16 for it is written, “Be holy because I [am] holy.”

I the Rock also to be disregarded?


I understand that what I am posting is controversial to a Paulian, however this is the Scriptura in black and white. Why are these ideas so confusing to those who believe in what is written in the Ne Testament? No disrespect to anybody ho believed differently than me. I'm only posting hat is contained within the Holy Bible with my own commentary. May God Bles all who read this.