Being bound..

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In light of my last question "Did Jesus and Paul have two different views as to sin and righteousness", I ask where did Jesus model, teach, or even point to the doctrine of being freed from the confines of the Law. Through some guidance I found Mt 16 & 18. The verses in Mt 16 are typically used to establish Peter's authority over the Church. But when taken and used in light of the actual events being described I now believe that Peter's Authority was not being established, but Jesus was establishing the "rock" or foundation that His church would be built on.


18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.[c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven."
(And again in Mt 18 the under line part)

If we look at the word used for Peter's name, many translate it to mean Rock. This in of itself is not an incorrect translation, but at the same time it does not give the scope or size of the Rock being described. Peter is being described by Christ as a small stone something that can be easily tossed, (Something like a "rolling stone" According to Zondervan's critical lexicon and concordance to the English and Greek new testament.)

From there, Christ says on this Rock I will build my Church. The Rock in which Jesus describes here is much larger than what Peter is made out to be. This rock is monumental or foundational. In stead of looking back for The Rock Jesus is describing, if we look forward in what he says, we see A principle that the Church is actually founded on, In that Whatever we bind Here on Earth is Bound in Heaven, and what we Loose on Earth is Loosed in Heaven... (This is the missing link in which I have been searching. Between Jesus and Paul's teachings.)

Their are those who would argue that Peter was the founding member of the Church, so that means the church was built on Peter. Without a doubt He did play a large Part. However if we honestly look at who or what has truly molded the Church into what it is today. we would have to attribute the lion's share of how the church works, and functions to the writings and works of Paul.

So if it is Paul's actions and teachings are what most of The Church is founded on Then either Jesus is mistaken when he says the church was to be built on peter, or Jesus was not talking about building the Church on one person, rather He was talking about building His church on the principle! In that What We Bind/Believe to be a sin in this life, will be held to us as sin when we are in Heaven, and what we loose here will in turn be loosed in Heaven. This to me sounds an awfully like What Paul spent most of his life preaching about.

What do you think?
 

ecclesasties

Newbie
Jun 30, 2010
157
45
✟8,017.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
there are different views as to who Jesus was speaking of. I believe (IMO) that Jesus was speaking of Himself. He is the cornerstone, the stumbling stone, the foundation, and the rock. The Church belongs to Him............as I said, opinions vary, ...............grain of salt............
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
there are different views as to who Jesus was speaking of. I believe (IMO) that Jesus was speaking of Himself. He is the cornerstone, the stumbling stone, the foundation, and the rock. The Church belongs to Him............as I said, opinions vary, ...............grain of salt............

Of course the Church is built on Christ otherwise we wouldn't be Christians. Over all though my focus is not Who the Church was built on but the principle that connects The ministry of Christ, and the works of the Apostle Paul. This is highlighted in what Christ says after He renames Peter in Chapter 16 of Mt:

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."
and again in Mt 18 in a similar context. (Which gives the church freedom or antimony over the law.)
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This has been debated to death. That is why most shy away from yet another thread on Peter.

This thread has little to nothing to do with Peter. It is the answer to a question I posted that has something like 16 pages of arguments and false accusations about me and my intentions.

My work here ties into the original question I asked about Jesus's and Paul's different takes on sin and righteousness. This should not be viewed as an attack on Peter. The only reason he is even mentioned is because I was trying to communicate that I knew how these verses were generally represented, and I gave reason or proof as to why these verses are better used as a way to establish a link between Jesus and Paul, rather than "who" the church was modeled after.

With My accusers having so much to say about my questioning the original theology that is used to support a doctrine of being free from the law, and absolutely nothing to say, about this (New to ME) way at looking at how Jesus pointed to Paul's up and coming work.. I take their silence as conformation of my intent and my findings.

That's why I said: No one cares for answers just the opportunity to fight..
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This thread has little to nothing to do with Peter. It is the answer to a question I posted that has something like 16 pages of arguments and false accusations about me and my intentions.

My work here ties into the original question I asked about Jesus's and Paul's different takes on sin and righteousness. This should not be viewed as an attack on Peter. The only reason he is even mentioned is because I was trying to communicate that I knew how these verses were generally represented, and I gave reason or proof as to why these verses are better used as a way to establish a link between Jesus and Paul, rather than "who" the church was modeled after.

With My accusers having so much to say about my questioning the original theology that is used to support a doctrine of being free from the law, and absolutely nothing to say, about this (New to ME) way at looking at how Jesus pointed to Paul's up and coming work.. I take their silence as conformation of my intent and my findings.

That's why I said: No one cares for answers just the opportunity to fight..

I think it's actually an interesting connection. I can't say that I fully agree for two reasons. Haven't thought it through, but if so, the results are, ummm, unsettling. But we've been warned, the very words we use ...

Peace
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think it's actually an interesting connection. I can't say that I fully agree for two reasons. Haven't thought it through, but if so, the results are, ummm, unsettling. But we've been warned, the very words we use ...

Peace

I truly be interested in hearing what you final thoughts will be on the matter. I'm not locked in one way or another. I put it out there so that those with greater knowledge of the scripture can either confirm or rebut what I have stumbled across.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
you can debate about what rock Jesus was talking about
but about the name change
Peter is being described by Christ as a small stone something that can be easily tossed,
i think that is not correct, it was a masculine form of the word rock and could be used for small stones or large ones
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The deal w/ Peter is he opened the kingdom to Jew and Gentile, preaching first.

But NEVER EVER has he said, believe on me. Really, too crazy to comment further. Peter himself appoints ELDERS (PLURAL). Heavens, if you're going to follow Peter, then follow Peter.

As well, fight ad infinitum (high-brow enough? :blush:;)), they have no understanding about Jesus also renaming James and John.

And there is zero evidence about apostolic lineage at Rome in any event (Irenaeus says Peter to Linus, Tertullian says Peter to Clement). Others contradict all over the place about the first five. Can we RIP it yet?

Peace and God bless us --- :groupray:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fireinfolding
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
you can debate about what rock Jesus was talking about
but about the name change i think that is not correct, it was a masculine form of the word rock and could be used for small stones or large ones


I didn't know there was a masculine Greek word for "rock." Apparently neither does Zondervan's. Because the word used sorta looks like: TTe'Tpos (Using a modern alphabet.) which literally means: A stone, a rolling stone, a loose stone or pebble that might be easily thrown by the hand. Again this is in Contrast to TTE'TPA which is A projecting cliff face or it gives the Idea of a large unmovable surface.

Peter's name is taken from TTe'Tpos Which looks like IIe'Pos. Which is not the monumental stone but the hand sized rock.

But again this has less to do with Peter or his role in the church. I only used these references to Show that these verses do not ascribe themselves to Peter's Ascension as the foundation of the church, but to show that the foundation of the Church (Past being built on Christ) is built on what Paul later describes as the freedom that set righteousness apart from the Law.
 
Upvote 0