Peter Is Not The Rock!

mont974x4 said:

Yep, in fact I got the cd with the commercials (and a promo loop) in the mail this morning.


I forgot, we are located on the busiest street in the state. Of course, with a state of just under 1 million people that isn't saying much. LOL

Click to expand...

Well, the total population of the state doesn't matter.

Look at Omaha, Nebraska. It's nearly a million strong and thriving, while the rest of Nebraska is corn fields, not that there is anything wrong with corn fields.

It's location that counts.

Bumping up the original OP:

Peter Is Not The Rock!

The Word of Yahuweh can't be any plainer than this.

The Savior for whom the Rock was named, asked His disciples the most important question ever posed: "Who do you say (lego - affirm and maintain, advise and teach) I Am (eimi - I exist and am present as)?" To which, a disciple named for the astuteness of his revelation, responded: "Simon (a transliteration of the Hebrew name Shim’own, meaning to listen, understand, discern, regard, and proclaim) Petros (a masculine proper name meaning pebble or stone) gave the answer, ‘The Messiah, the Son of the living God.’" (Matthew 16:15-16)

Affirming this live-saving truth, "Yahushua said (lego), ‘Blessed (makarios - a poetic term denoting transcendent happiness in a life beyond labor and death) are you Shim’own (the one who listens, understands, discerns, regards, and proclaims), son of (bar) Yonah (from yownah, meaning the dove; the name of a Yahudi sent to Nineveh, Assyria whose life and book serve as a prophetic metaphor for Yahushua saving Gentiles), because flesh and blood did not make this manifest (apokalupto - disclose by baring), but My Father who is in Heaven." (Matthew 16:17) As is usually true with Scripture, every name and nuance was carefully chosen, revealing subtle and profound truths.

What follows is important. Petros/Peter isn’t the petra/bedrock. The recognition that "Yahushua is the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the foundation upon which the ekklesia/called-out assembly would be restored and established. Beyond the evidence sprinkled throughout the Tanach, identifying the Rock with Yahshua, "Petros" was a man and every reference to "petra/bedrock" is feminine.

"Indeed (de), I (kago) say (logos) concerning this (hoti - as a marker of equivalence for identifying and explaining this) to you (soi), you (su) are (ei) Petros (a masculine proper noun meaning pebble or stone), and (kai) upon/by/in/with (epi - "upon" when used with things that are at rest, "by" when used in relationship to people, "with" when used in connection with authority, and "in" used in reference to an observation) this one (taute - singular feminine demonstrative pronoun) Rock (petra - bedrock, a feminine noun; a large stone which projects itself) I shall build by edifying, promoting, and restoring (oikodomeo - rebuild and establish, strengthen and enable, instruct and improve) My (mou) called out gathering (ekklesia)." (Matthew 16:18)

English translations all leave "hoti/concerning this" out of their renderings of Yahshua’s answer. Had it been included, no rational person would have thought that Petros, rather than his answer, was the foundation of the ekklesia. The source of edification and restoration is the Savior, not his flawed and imperfect disciple.

Believing Peter is the Rock is irrational and delusional. The evidence of Yahuweh's Word is irrevocable/irrefutable and supercedes, trumps, pre-empts, negates, refutes, and proves to be a lie all that oppose/contradict it, whether said opposition is human or church dogma.

The whole of Scripture points to Christ and His headship/cheif shephers/ rock we build our house on/ chief cornerstone......not pete.

mont974x4 said:

The whole of Scripture points to Christ and His headship/cheif shephers/ rock we build our house on/ chief cornerstone......not pete.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have the greek translation over here:

http://christianforums.com/t6871750-matt-1618-and-greek-question.html

LittleLambofJesus said:

Bumping up the original OP:

Peter Is Not The Rock! ....

Click to expand...

ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].



JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].



CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].



J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].



R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).



HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter&#8217 to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].



DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).


source link

Thank you CC for Roman catholicism's view.

Catholic Christian said:

Did you read those? Those are protestants.

Click to expand...

Yep. But then I do not agree with a lot of Protestantisms views of Scriptures either.

I am neither Roman catholic/catholicism or Protestant. Read my signature btw as that is where I firmly stand, unshakeble in my Faith.

DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

I should make a thread on "The pope is not the Rock"

I haven't looked it up, but I'd like to see what the RCC has to say about SATAN speaking THROUGH Peter...when mankind supposedly have "freewill" in RCC measures...

will thumb the RCC encyclo...see how they address this action...

I must give credit where credit is due...

The RCC encyclopedia says that PETER is NOT "The Rock."

"And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.
3. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced "blessed,"

So I guess we got that much straight eh?

That charge will never be on my table again...

source:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp



For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.


ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].



JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].



CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].



J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].



R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).



HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter&#8217 to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].



DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

It would appear that they did not IMPLICATE anyone as SATAN BUT PETER!

"This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced "blessed," bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was "blessed," a very little while after that he had heard that he was "Peter," a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be "built upon the Rock," displeased the Lord when He had heard of His future Passion, for He had foretold His disciples that it was soon to be. He feared lest he should by death, lose Him whom he had confessed as the fountain of life. He was troubled, and said, "Be it far from You, Lord: this shall not be to You." Spare Yourself, O God, I am not willing that You should die. Peter said to Christ, I am not willing that You should die; but Christ far better said, I am willing to die for you. And then He forthwith rebuked him, whom He had a little before commended; and calls him Satan, whom he had pronounced "blessed." "Get behind Me, Satan," he says, "you are an offence unto Me: for you savour not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." What would He have us do in our present state, who thus finds fault because we are men? Would you know what He would have us do? Give ear to the Psalm; "I have said, You are gods, and you are all the children of the Most High." But by savouring the things of men; "you shall die like men." The very same Peter a little while before blessed, afterwards Satan, in one moment, within a few words!

Thou wonderest at the difference of the names, mark the difference of the reasons of them. Why do you wonder that he who was a little before blessed, is afterwards Satan?"

uh...yep...I SURE do...!

"Mark the reason wherefore he is blessed. "Because flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven." Therefore blessed, because flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you. For if flesh and blood revealed this to you, it were of your own; but because flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven, it is of Mine, not of your own. Why of Mine? "Because all things that the Father has are Mine." So then you have heard the cause, why he is "blessed," and why he is "Peter." But why was he that which we shudder at, and are loth to repeat, why, but because it was of your own? "For you savour not the things which be of God, but those that be of men."
4. Let us, looking at ourselves in this member of the Church, distinguish what is of God, and what of ourselves. For then we shall not totter, then shall we be founded on the Rock, shall be fixed and firm against the winds, and storms, and streams, the temptations, I mean, of this present world. Yet see this Peter, who was then our figure; now he trusts, and now he totters; now he confesses the Undying, and now he fears lest He should die. Wherefore? because the Church of Christ has both strong and weak ones; and cannot be without either strong or weak; whence the Apostle Paul says, "Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak." In that Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," he represents the strong: but in that he totters, and would not that Christ should suffer, in fearing death for Him, and not acknowledging the Life, he represents the weak ones of the Church. In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak; because the Church does not exist without them both."

YIKES! They did not even ATTRIBUTE Satan to be anything other than PETER...

Wow!

I better check on who they think SATAN really is?

Next....

They do credit SATAN's influences over the minds of mankind...(maybe just the evil ones?)

"Besides exercising this authority over those who were called "his angels", Satan has extended his empire over the minds of evil men. Thus, in the passage just cited from St. Paul, we read, "And you, when you were dead in your offenses and sins, wherein in times past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief" (Ephesians 2:1-2). In the same way Christ in the Gospel calls him "the prince of this world". For when His enemies are coming to take Him, He looks beyond the instruments of evil to the master who moves them, and says: "I will not now speak many things to you, for the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not anything" (John 14:30)."

So, I guess my question will remain....

DID SATAN speak THROUGH PETER? Or was it just PETER speaking and Jesus calling him SATAN?

They did pin Peter's MISSED STATEMENTS only UPON PETER....beyond any doubt...

So WHY did they not IMPLICATE Satan there?

I can't seem to catch their drift on this one because they did NOT dissect SATAN from PETER in the prior depiction....attributing THE FAULTS that Peter spoke ONLY TO PETER...

squint said:

It would appear that they did not IMPLICATE anyone as SATAN BUT PETER!......

.............YIKES! They did not even ATTRIBUTE Satan to be anything other than PETER...

Wow!

I better check on who they think SATAN really is?

Next....

Click to expand...

When ya find out, let us know.

http://www.satansrapture.com/
THE OFFICIAL SITE FOR
E S C A P E 666

Catholic Christian said:

source:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp



For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

Click to expand...

Uh, I just put in a segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia that DOES NOT MAKE that position...

"And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.
3. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced "blessed,"

Yeah...read it right here, paragraph 2:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

Methinks some of you RCC'ers should brush up on these things. Those statements were from St. Augustine.

squint said:

Methinks some of you RCC'ers should brush up on these things. Those statements were from St. Augustine.

Click to expand...

From what I can see here in GT, they only use Augustine when he supports their claims. And if others post quotes from Augustine that don't agree with their beliefs, they are taking them out of context.

<sarcasm>
You see, only a current Catholic really knows the teachings. Converts away from Catholicism have a bias, non-Catholics have a bias. Even the Catholics within the church who disagree occasionally have a bias.

Everyone has a bias except for the Catholics who believe the one and only truth. (I'm tempted to ™ that phrase as well.)



</sarcasm>

PreachersWife2004 said:

.........
<sarcasm>
You see, only a current Catholic really knows the teachings. Converts away from Catholicism have a bias, non-Catholics have a bias. Even the Catholics within the church who disagree occasionally have a bias.......................
</sarcasm>

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by tadoflamb

YOU WIN!

The weight of that rock is crushing!

PreachersWife2004 said:

From what I can see here in GT, they only use Augustine when he supports their claims.

Click to expand...

Actually, when cherrypicked snippets of Augustine are not used, there is very little that supports Roman Catholicism. Certainly not the claims of Roman papal supremacy, or of the Roman sacerdotal sacramentalist system that developed in Rome during the dark ages.

Augustine's soteriology is what gave us the Reformation, beginning with Jan Hus who was Augustinian, as was Rome until the dark ages.

And if others post quotes from Augustine that don't agree with their beliefs, they are taking them out of context.

<sarcasm>
You see, only a current Catholic really knows the teachings. Converts away from Catholicism have a bias, non-Catholics have a bias. Even the Catholics within the church who disagree occasionally have a bias.

Click to expand...

The Mormons are the same.

Everyone has a bias except for the Catholics who believe the one and only truth. (I'm tempted to ™ that phrase as well.)



</sarcasm>

Click to expand...

The Mormons are the same.

TraderJack said:

Actually, when cherrypicked snippets of Augustine are not used, there is very little that supports Roman Catholicism. Certainly not the claims of Roman papal supremacy, or of the Roman sacerdotal sacramentalist system that developed in Rome during the dark ages.

Augustine's soteriology is what gave us the Reformation, beginning with Jan Hus who was Augustinian, as was Rome until the dark ages.

Everyone has a bias except for the Catholics who believe the one and only truth. (I'm tempted to ™ that phrase as well.)


</sarcasm>

Click to expand...

The Mormons are the same.

Click to expand...

Matthew 2:6 And thou, Beth-Lehem, land of Judah, no means least you are in the ones leading of Judah. For out of thee shall be coming out, one leading/hgoumenoV <2233> , who any shall be shepherding/poimanei <4165> the people of Me, the Israel.'

John 10:9 I am the door. Through Me if ever may be into-coming he shall be being saved, and shall be into-coming and shall be out-coming and pasture/nomhn <3542> shall be finding.