Peter Is Not The Rock!

IamAdopted said:

I agree and we see that Paul was an ambassador of Christ and not of Peter..

Click to expand...

hmmm. I didnt get that view when reading Acts..

Just because Paul has more writings in the bible than Peter dosen't undermine his importance..

And again, Peter in Aramaic is Rock. Out of all the millions of names Jesus would give to Simon he gave him the name Rock.. If Jesus didn't mean Peter to be the Rock that the church be built on why would he change his name to rock. The equation is very direct and simple..Even prominent protestant theoligans understand Peter as the Rock..

sunlover1 said:

Can you share what you're talking about here?
Thanks,
sunlover



If Jesus was speaking aramaic, why would he have
to explain what Cephas means?
He had to be speaking in another language
or this passage doesnt make sense.
He seemed to feel he had to explain
to them what the word Cephas meant.


42 And he brought him to Jesus.
And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona:
thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is by interpretation, A stone.

Right?

Click to expand...

Jesus was simply stating that he was changing Simons name to Kephas.. He knew Peter would have significance and importance and thus he changed his name..

Renton405 said:

hmmm. I didnt get that view when reading Acts..

Just because Paul has more writings in the bible than Peter dosen't undermine his importance..

And again, Peter in Aramaic is Rock. Out of all the millions of names Jesus would give to Simon he gave him the name Rock.. If Jesus didn't mean Peter to be the Rock that the church be built on why would he change his name to rock. The equation is very direct and simple..Even prominent protestant theoligans understand Peter as the Rock..

Click to expand...

Renton if the bible had been written in Aaramaic then you might have an argument.. But since it was not you do not have that ground to stand on for that is sinking sand. It was written in greek and that is why Petro's was used.. Small moveable stone. Now if you want to look up small moveable stone in Aaramaic that would be the word used..

Just because Paul has more writings in the bible than Peter dosen't undermine his importance..

Click to expand...

I will assume you mean Peter's importance...

"It is written" - in Greek, not Aramaic. Are we to assume God made a mistake, and your presumption corrects it?

IamAdopted said:

Renton if the bible had been written in Aaramaic then you might have an argument.. But since it was not you do not have that ground to stand on for that is sinking sand. It was written in greek and that is why Petro's was used.. Small moveable stone. Now if you want to look up small moveable stone in Aaramaic that would be the word used..

Click to expand...

I prefer the Hebrew and Greek myself.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

[ISA] Z@karyah 8:23 Thus sayeth YHWH-of Hosts: in-Days, the-those, which They-shall-take-fast/hold a-hem/wing, Ten Mortals/Men/0582 'enowsh, from-all Tongues-of the-Nations.
And-They-take-fast/hold in-hem-of/03671 kanaph a-Man/0376 'iysh, a-Y@huwdiy, to-say We-are-going with-You that We-hear Elohiym with-You.

Mark 6:56 And wheresoever He went into villages, or into cities, or into fields/hamlets in the marketplaces, they place the being sick and were beseeching Him that only the fringe/kraspedou <2899>of the garment of Him they may be touching, and as manysoever as touch of Him/it, were saved.

Renton405 said:

Jesus was simply stating that he was changing Simons name to Kephas.. He knew Peter would have significance and importance and thus he changed his name..

Click to expand...

Hi Renton,


I think it was Rick Otto who mentioned
that other 'name' Jesus addressed Pete with.
(All things considered)

And of course, like was mentioned earlier,
we know that God is NO respector of persons.

He even speaks of GREATER condemnation on those
who have to dress for and covet honor it seems.


James 2
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly&#65279;a&#65279;
a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel,
and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing,
and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place;
and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves,
and are become judges of evil thoughts?
a assembly: Gr. synagogue





Luke 20

"For through Him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." .... church 'succession' can only be traced back to Christ (the 'coner stone' of ouir faith) through the Spirit, for it is Jesus (not Peter!) who is the Author & Finisher of our Faith!

Call no man "Rabbi".

Rick Otto said:

I will assume you mean Peter's importance...

"It is written" - in Greek, not Aramaic. Are we to assume God made a mistake, and your presumption corrects it?

Click to expand...

Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues


If you know your Christian History you know that Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin From the Septuagint. We trust that he did it correctly otherwise we are all in trouble. Here he writes to Pope Damasus and says--


As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18

Rick Otto said:

Call no man "Rabbi".

Click to expand...

What about this man

[ISA] Z@karyah 8:23 Thus sayeth YHWH-of Hosts: in-Days, the-those, which They-shall-take-fast/hold a-hem/wing, Ten Mortals, from-all Tongues-of the-Nations.
And-They-hold in-hem-of a-Man, a-Y@huwdiy, to-say We-are-going with-You that We-hear Elohiym with-You.

Mark 6:56 And wheresoever He went into villages, or into cities, or into fields/hamlets in the marketplaces, they place the being sick and were beseeching Him that only the fringeof the garment of Him they may be touching, and as manysoever as touch of Him/it, were saved.

sunlover1 said:

Hi Renton,


I think it was Rick Otto who mentioned
that other 'name' Jesus addressed Pete with.
(All things considered)

And of course, like was mentioned earlier,
we know that God is NO respector of persons.

He even speaks of GREATER condemnation on those
who have to dress for and covet honor it seems.


James 2
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly&#65279;a&#65279;
a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel,
and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing,
and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place;
and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves,
and are become judges of evil thoughts?
a assembly: Gr. synagogue





Luke 20

45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
46 Beware of the scribes,
which desire to walk in long robes,
and love greetings in the markets,
and the highest seats in the synagogues,
and the chief rooms at feasts;
47 Which devour widows’ houses,
and for a shew make long prayers:
the same shall receive greater damnation.​

​

I think there's a lot to see in that Book.
But I don't see how we are to exalt any
men above others.​

(And I am wrong OFTEN, so please correct​

me on this one if so)

Click to expand...

Good work, Firecritter. And you did all that with a racoon on yer shoulder - amazing!

What about this man

Click to expand...

He allowed it here:
John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see.
So I guess you busted me good, Li'lLamb.I'll have to ask you to "pardon my paraphrase"!
Here is the correct rendering with context:

Matthew 23:1-12 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Thank you for the correction, bro!

Rick Otto said:

Good work, Firecritter. And you did all that with a racoon on yer shoulder - amazing!

Click to expand...

LOL CUTE!! It wasnt Laborsome, he was taking a nap on my shoulder before I reflected on any of it

Actually, both Peter and Christ are the rock.

Rick Otto said:

Good work, Firecritter. And you did all that with a racoon on yer shoulder - amazing!

Click to expand...

Yes that is quite an awesome feat, but then again
you're awesome too.




Yeah firecritter, I'm looking at the name game also.
God changed Peter's name, that's a fact.
What did He mean?
That's the million dollar question.
(for some)

PeaceLover02 said:

Actually, both Peter and Christ are the rock.

Click to expand...

Well, that is a little redundant.
JESUS/Savior was THE CHRIST/Annointed of God, but Peter and the Apostles were little Christs/annointeds, much like us.

sunlover1 said:

Hi Renton,


I think it was Rick Otto who mentioned
that other 'name' Jesus addressed Pete with.
(All things considered)

And of course, like was mentioned earlier,
we know that God is NO respector of persons.

He even speaks of GREATER condemnation on those
who have to dress for and covet honor it seems.




Luke 20

45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
46 Beware of the scribes,
which desire to walk in long robes,
and love greetings in the markets,
and the highest seats in the synagogues,
and the chief rooms at feasts;
47 Which devour widows’ houses,
and for a shew make long prayers:
the same shall receive greater damnation.​

​

I think there's a lot to see in that Book.
But I don't see how we are to exalt any
men above others.​

(And I am wrong OFTEN, so please correct
me on this one if so)​

​

Click to expand...

When I see verses quoted in threads like this I get the sneaky suspicion the poster is refering to the Catholic Church, but let me tell you a story....

About 9 months ago I got a call at my parish from a woman who need some help with her electric bill. She was a single mom with a young, special needs child. As is custom, another parishoner and myself paid this woman a visit to bring her some food and to see what her needs were. During our conversation I came to realize that she had been giving money to three very wealthy, prominent TV evangelists.

The Catholic faithful paid her electric bill that day.

In my state if your electricity gets turned off, you have five days to get it restored or else the landlord has to evict you. It was the Catholic Church that kept that woman and child in their home.

Seven months later, she called again.

We gave her more assistance. This time we also paid her rent.

I can see where you might be coming from when you post verses like this, but from my perspective, it's not the Catholic Church that is devouring widow's houses.

The opposite is true. The charities within the Catholic Church enables a lot of modern day widows and orphans to obtain and to stay in their homes. I'm personally involved in this ministry and see it happen on a daily basis.

In Christ,

Tad

And do you think protestant churches don't?

PeaceLover02 said:

Actually, both Peter and Christ are the rock.

Click to expand...

No one is arguing that point

Duet 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock

Theres a rock HIGHER then I Just as a disciple is not ABOVE His Master. Same with a ~lively stone~ (even as Peter was) whose name by interpretation is ~a stone~... the Greater is the Stone (of him) who is the Cheif CornerStone.

Isaiah 17:10 Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shalt set it with strange slips:

Not being mindful of God (the rock) is the same as not "savouresting" the things of God.

Mark 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.


Psalm 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Psalm 18:2 The LORD is my rock

Peters fear of men (even being mindful of the things that be of men) is shown as his offence to Christ. This is shown a couple times in himself. His fear of the circumcision was what cause him not to walk uprightly in accordance with the truth (even as it pertains to the cross) of the which Paul speaks of...

Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.


Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12 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.

Prov 29:25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.


Not walking "uprightly" Gal 2:14 (as they were found not walking) after the gospel (the cross of Christ) because of which Peter got rebuked of the Lord (Mat 16:22) would be contrasted against those who would ~bow down~ their back always Rom 11:10 This, as it pertains to the cross (and walking in accordance to the gospel). The cross is "the upright stake" and the walk is as uprightly in accordance to the truth of it. Thats where the "snare" and stumbling block is shown concerning their table (backs bowed down) verses ~uprightly~ Rom 11:9. This is the same table that is set in the presence of ~his enemies~ Romans 11:28 and its in this regard ~many~ live as enemies of the Cross of Christ Phil 3:18 Its just as Paul says as it pertains to being persecuted (for the cross of Christ) and as Jesus speaks of persecution coming because of the word they become ~offended~ and fall away. This also speaking to their "falling away" and many being ~offended~ in accordance to the same truths.

Whew... sorry I talk too much, I was only going to post 4 verses but went on and on. But I agree with you concerning both.

Peace

Fireinfolding

And of course, like was mentioned earlier,
we know that God is NO respector of persons.

He even speaks of GREATER condemnation on those
who have to dress for and covet honor it seems.




Luke 20

45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
46 Beware of the scribes,
which desire to walk in long robes,
and love greetings in the markets,
and the highest seats in the synagogues,
and the chief rooms at feasts;
47 Which devour widows’ houses,
and for a shew make long prayers:
the same shall receive greater damnation.​

​

I think there's a lot to see in that Book.
But I don't see how we are to exalt any
men above others.​

(And I am wrong OFTEN, so please correct
me on this one if so)​

​

Click to expand...

tadoflamb said:

When I see verses quoted in threads like this I get the sneaky suspicion the poster is refering to the Catholic Church, but let me tell you a story....

About 9 months ago I got a call at my parish from a woman who need some help with her electric bill. She was a single mom with a young, special needs child. As is custom, another parishoner and myself paid this woman a visit to bring her some food and to see what her needs were. During our conversation I came to realize that she had been giving money to three very wealthy, prominent TV evangelists.

The Catholic faithful paid her electric bill that day.

In my state if your electricity gets turned off, you have five days to get it restored or else the landlord has to evict you. It was the Catholic Church that kept that woman and child in their home.

Seven months later, she called again.

We gave her more assistance. This time we also paid her rent.

I can see where you might be coming from when you post verses like this, but from my perspective, it's not the Catholic Church that is devouring widow's houses.

The opposite is true. The charities within the Catholic Church enables a lot of modern day widows and orphans to obtain and to stay in their homes. I'm personally involved in this ministry and see it happen on a daily basis.

In Christ,

Tad

Click to expand...

You got that from my passage?
Why would that be?
(K, i reread it, it's the long robes I think, yeah
I dont care for that fancy dressing, I think everyone
should look "equal" but anyhow, I didnt WRITE the
passage, so it wasnt my idea)

Nice story about the poor lady, but that shouldn't
be a surprise to you. This is how we are to conduct
business ALL the time isnt it?

If someone comes to my home who's in need, I open
the wallet or the pantry. Isn't that a given?
If we deny the least of our brethren
We are denying Christ.
Your story should be a commonplace thing that you see.


Anyhow Tad, my question wasnt about Catholics,
it was about exalting men above what they should be.


See it ALL the time, in churches, in restaurants, etc.

When I was an insurance agent, I wore beautiful suits
and fancy jewelry etc to look like someone you can
trust your money with lol.

EVERY door was opened for me, best seats in the
house, bell of the ball etc.

If I went out at night in my jeans, TOTALLY different
treatment, then I was just another person.

THAT's what i was talking about.


If I am wrong, please show me, so I can
rethink that.


sunlover