Peter Is Not The Rock!

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

Of course, as I pointed out, even following Holy Tradition does not mean that we shall always agree, but when you write

I wonder what you mean? The Bible does not 'speak for itself'; if it did there would be agreement between those who read it, and there clearly is not, so I am genuinely puzzled as to what you mean here.


To be fair, that is strayed from your own reading of what the Apostles' taught. That is one of my points. The crack through which the bitterness enters so many Christian discussions is when they think that they alone adhere to the teachings of the Apostles and refuse to see that even in the NT one can discern many traditions. It is the insistence that there was no diversity of understanding and should be no diversity of understadning which, literayll, bedevils so many discussions. Are we all so insecure that we can't live with the level of diversity that the Apostles lived with?



I am genuinely sorry for you if you have never been into a holy place and felt God's presence there. There is a small Church in Suffolk I go to whenever I am there, and Christians have worshipped there since Saxon times. It is tiny, isolated, and very plain, and yet whenever I go there I feel a communion with countless generations who have worshipped the Risen Christ there. There is a Coptic Monastery I visit which was founded in the fourth century AD and where the Liturgy has been prayed since the time of St. Cyril; the atmosphere there is one of deep quietness where the still, small voice can be heard. I hope, and pray, you will one day have such experiences.

Peace,

Anglian

Howdy my dear Anglian,

No, I don't ascribe sanctity to a place. Emotionally, I might because I'm but human. But I know God honours truth and correct teachings more than the physical place even if it's stained with the blood of martyrs.

I can worship in the most modern building. I believe even the Salvation Army HQ next to the Millennium Bridge - the very modern glass building (you probably know what I'm talking about) can be a place of worship as long as correct theology is preached and correct practices are carried out. My own church is a stately building, very old but it used to be owned by the RCs before it became CoE by God's grace. It's visited by a lot of tourists but because my vicar preaches the correct theology, it's a lovely place of worship, never mind its past.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. The question ultimately is are we following the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles? Have we departed from those teachings and if so, are we willing to ignore our own cherished habits and discard that which is unapostolic? I'm speaking generally and it applies to me as much as it does to any other Christian.

 

[sunlover1]

Sunlover
What does it mean for Jesus to be Lord?

Easy, what does the word Lord mean?

the Muslims think he is a very important prophet and was born of a virgin,

But they dont call Him Lord

but they do not think Jesus is God. So they are not christian
One reason I like the Nicene Creed, it sums up the basic beliefs of christians

One reason I'm not concerned with the Nicene Creed is because
we cannot, never could and never will on this side of the Jordan
in our little minds, understand God to that degree or put God into a
box.

But I can understand why it gives you a sense of comfort and boundaries.
God created us to think differently I guess.

 

[Rhamiel]

Sun

Easy, what does the word Lord mean?

a feudal european land owner with vassals and serfs?

 

[Rhamiel]

sun

One reason I'm not concerned with the Nicene Creed is because
we cannot, never could and never will on this side of the Jordan
in our little minds, understand God to that degree or put God into a
box.

But I can understand why it gives you a sense of comfort and boundaries.
God created us to think differently I guess.

We will never fully understand God, He is above us in every way, it is called the mystery of the Trinity for a reason, we are one, God is three, we will never fully understand that, it is just out of our frame of refferance, but to say that all the parts of the Trinity are fully God is something Christians should be able to say

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Dear friends,

I have overstepped my bounds in my discussion that has sidetracked this thread. I wish to apologize. Narnia59 and Anglian have both made some exceptional points and I will have to retract some of my statements regarding what makes a council Ecumenical. I have repeated the views of the Eastern Orthodox Church as best I can for your review. However I believe I have failed to be able to fully expand upon the ideals that are withing the context. For additional information TAW is alway open and this link may be helpful. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

Back to the O.P.

Forgive me...

 

[sunlover1]

Sun a feudal european land owner with vassals and serfs?

Heh. That's clever Rham.
Sure, you can use that definition.

sun
We will never fully understand God, He is above us in every way, it is called the mystery of the Trinity for a reason, we are one, God is three, we will never fully understand that, it is just out of our frame of refferance, but to say that all the parts of the Trinity are fully God is something Christians should be able to say

Yes, the mystery of the Godhead.
Like I said, we think differently about it but I bet
theres not a thing that we think 100% the same
about, which would be boring anyhow, right?
(God is one, not three btw)

 

[visionary]

Back to Peter and what exactly Yeshua was saying when after Peter understood who exactly Yeshua was was given a blessing, just like Abraham was given a blessing.

 

[sunlover1]

Back to Peter and what exactly Yeshua was saying when after Peter understood who exactly Yeshua was was given a blessing, just like Abraham was given a blessing.

I thought this was well written:

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.

I havent seen anyone raise a good argument against it so far.

 

[visionary]

I thought this was well written:

I havent seen anyone raise a good argument against it so far.

neither have I

 

[narnia59]

Dear friends,

I have overstepped my bounds in my discussion that has sidetracked this thread. I wish to apologize. Narnia59 and Anglian have both made some exceptional points and I will have to retract some of my statements regarding what makes a council Ecumenical. I have repeated the views of the Eastern Orthodox Church as best I can for your review. However I believe I have failed to be able to fully expand upon the ideals that are withing the context. For additional information TAW is alway open and this link may be helpful. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

Back to the O.P.

Forgive me...

Thank you for the article OrthodoxyUSA -- it helps clarify a lot. Especially this part --

Another ecclesiological problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that the Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been "received by the whole Church" while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejected it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside.

It explains why my head kept going round in circles trying to undertand, so I'm glad to know it wasn't just my head.

It does appear from this that the concept you were speaking of is known as 'receptionism' and is a relatively new theory but not something historically seen in the church. That makes much more sense to my concept of history, but we do indeed all look at our common history through different lens.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Nor I. Very well stated.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Thank you for the article OrthodoxyUSA -- it helps clarify a lot. Especially this part --

Another ecclesiological problem is also created by receptionism: Why is it, for instance, that the Fourth Ecumenical Council may be said to have been "received by the whole Church" while significant numbers of Christians apparently within the Church rejected it, leading to the schism which even now persists? Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts a council is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside.

It explains why my head kept going round in circles trying to undertand, so I'm glad to know it wasn't just my head.

It does appear from this that the concept you were speaking of is known as 'receptionism' and is a relatively new theory but not something historically seen in the church. That makes much more sense to my concept of history, but we do indeed all look at our common history through different lens.

We see the term 'receptionism' as new in expression but not practice. I can see that it was not used in the west at all, and I can see the reason for questioning if it was used from the beginning. There is ample evidence to support that some did and some did not. So, just as the liturgical "fashions" grew and changed so did everything else.

A Traditionalist looks for the common root of all these practices. Just like looking for the Liturgy that was taught by Christ to James, John and Peter. However, we are looking at them through different lenses as you say. Getting back to the root is not attainable without a leap of faith at some point saying... I believe "this group" has the closest representation of that root.

Peace.

Forgive me...

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=narnia59;Jesus also did not say "and upon your profession of faith I will build my church" either. Nor is their any indication that he switched the focus from Peter to himself.

I'm not proposing He switched the focus to Himself.

He didn't just say 'this', he said 'this rock', as if we're supposed to know which rock he's talking about. Which rock would be "this rock"?

That question would have been answered with a personal pronoun ("you") and would have been consistent with Him personaly addressing Peter. By Him not using the personal pronoun "you" we can presume that He had to either turn from personaly addressing Peter to address all present, which would moderate but not completely dismiss the question of His use of the impersonal pronoun ("this"- instead of "he"), or that He didn't mean this rock was a person, leaving only the rock of truth this person expressed.

The only rock he's referred to (immediately preceding 'this rock') is Peter.

Not necessarily.

The person he is talking to is Peter.

Then He would've said "upon you", not "upon this".

The person he named Cephas (rock) at their first meeting was Peter.

The person scripture repeatedly names as the rock in the OT & NT is Christ, not Peter.

Yes, the other apostles were given this authority, but the 'keys' are missing. They are given solely to Peter.

Then the keys having a symbolic meaning has a point of diminishing returns. That would be the point at which they were unnecessary in assigning the exact same authority to the other apostles. Your over-emphasis is self-serving in this respect.

Which models the OT Jewish kingships.

Which ignores the Melchizedek king/priest model that Jesus presented.

There were many different offices, each with their own authority.

More than can be counted on one hand? I don't think so. Again you over-emphasize, exagerrating a meaning to suit your authority preference.

But only one was given the keys. Only one was in charge of the palace.

That was king-only. We're talkin' king/priest, & a nation thereof, and a dissemination of the exact same authority amongst at least dozen people*, regardless of a single instance of use of metaphor, no actual keys existing or having been literaly given.

* the Matt 18 scripture shows He was addressing "disciples", not "apostles".

 

[visionary]

Then He would've said "upon you", not "upon this".

Excellent point.

 

[Rick Otto]

I thought this was well written:

Originally Posted by lokt

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.
​

I havent seen anyone raise a good argument against it so far.

Agreed.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You write:

The question ultimately is are we following the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles? Have we departed from those teachings and if so, are we willing to ignore our own cherished habits and discard that which is unapostolic? I'm speaking generally and it applies to me as much as it does to any other Christian.

and I am sure we all agree. But this does not answer the question of what you mean when you say that the Bible speaks for itself. Patently that is precisely what it does not do, in so far as it is read in many different ways, as this discussion shows.

Those of us who are not Catholics, for example, insist on our reading, and yet we deny the reading which equally learned and pious men within the Catholic Church have come to. Some then say that Catholic teachings are unApostolic, implying that those judging in that way have some hotline or insight to the Apostles denied to others; those same people are critical when the Catholic Church claims unique authority for its teachings, and yet they do exactly what it is they are accusing Catholics of doing - insisting on their own unique authority.

It would be helpful if you, or anyone else here, could expand on the notion that the Bible speaks for itself.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

The Bible speaks for itself means that it has enough internal structural integrity to define it's own terms & scope, & to resolve apparent contradictions on the overwhelming preponderance of ideas expressed therein.

 

[Anglian]

The Bible speaks for itself means that it has enough internal structural integrity to define it's own terms & scope, & to resolve apparent contradictions on the overwhelming preponderance of ideas expressed therein.

Dear Rick,

Thanks for this. Does this actually represent reality? I ask because a quick look at this Forum suggests that most people are speaking for the Bible, telling us what it means to them. That seems fair enough. It is when they deny what others say it means to them that the problems appear to start.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

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.

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.

Regarding the blue -- if at the time of Peter's profession of faith, Jesus actually changed his name to "Cephas", one might logically conclude the two are associated. However, since Jesus actually changed Peter's name to Cephas at their first meeting, this action of giving Peter the name meaning 'rock' is clearly quite independent of the profession of faith.

Regarding the red, the reason that every reference to petra is feminine is because that's the gender of the noun in Greek. If when the NT was actually referring to a stone it used the word 'petros', one might be able to logically conclude there is a difference in meaning between 'petros' and 'petra' in the NT. However, this is not the case -- the only time the NT uses the term 'petros' is in direct reference to the person Peter, never in reference to a small stone. (The word lithos is used in that case). So the question must become -- is the intention of the Greek to point to a clear difference in meaning between stone and rock? If so, lithos/petra would have been consistent with the rest of the writing in the NT. Using 'petros' to consistently denote 'stone' in other areas of the NT could indicate this as well.

Instead, 'petros' is solely reserved in denoting Peter. So we have 'petra' (a word that we know means rock but is in a feminine form), 'petros' (only used to denote the man Peter which is definitely not feminine), and 'lithos' (used for other references to stones). Concluding the Greek is attempting to state that there is a great difference between 'petros' and 'petra' instead of simply making a quite logical decision to not translate the meaning of the name given to the MAN Peter in feminine form is not really logical although I would not call it irrational and delusional, for I do not propose to know the state of mind of others. Obviously you do not have a problem with that, or in believing that your personal interpretation is infallible in some way, as your view about opposition to your interpretation (rather than the word of God) would indicate.

And speaking of questions never really answered -- why did Christ change Peter's name at all? This little snippet from gotquestions is interesting (a fundamentalist site I believe)

When God gave someone a new name is was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s "high father" name to Abraham "father of multitude" (Genesis 17:5). God changed Jacob’s "supplanter" name to Israel “having power with God” (Genesis 32:28). He changed Simon’s "God has heard" name to Peter "rock" (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to Peter? My guess is that Jesus called him Simon whenever he was not being the “rock” God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him Jacob to remind him of his past and to remind to depend on God’s strength.

http://www.gotquestions.org/name-change.html

So, why did Christ change Peter's name to rock again?? What is this new 'identify' he received?

 

[Rick Otto]

Dear Rick,

Thanks for this. Does this actually represent reality? I ask because a quick look at this Forum suggests that most people are speaking for the Bible, telling us what it means to them. That seems fair enough. It is when they deny what others say it means to them that the problems appear to start.

Peace,

Anglian

I don't see that denial as a problem, as long as it remains civil.
Don't judge the Bible simply by what others say about it.
When people cease being civil about their differences, don't blame the Bible.