Peter Is Not The Rock!

[Fireinfolding]

He wasn't ambiguous. He was very clear.

He said (in Aramaic)

You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.

Anyone listening would have no doubt what Jesus was implying. The church for over 1,600 years understood it the same way. Early writings are rife with it. This whole "Jesus was talking about Peter's confession" or "Jesus was talking about Himself" is a modern construct.

On that which He confessed just prior, the spiritual rock is Christ (of who He confessed) by the which (as it is written) NO MAN CAN SAY ~EXCEPT BY~ the Spirit (Given OF the Father) as Jesus plainly showed. It was IN THAT (and in the context of who MEN SAY that I AM) verses WHO THEY SAY (HE IS) and is pointed out by Jesus that what they COULD reccognize and CONFESS was GIVEN THEM (of the Father).

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He said (in Aramaic)

You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.

Hi. Does the aramaic have the article "the" before kepha? What is your translation of this complete verse.

Byz./Maj.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth {this/that?} th {THE} petra {ROCK} oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

Reve 6:16 and they say to the mountains and to the rocks/petraiV <4073>, `Fall upon us, and hide us

 

[Matthan]

Praying God keep Pam and her family safe through the storm too.

Peace

Fireinfolding

Praying should be done in private, and God will always hear...

 

[ScottBot]

It is usually significant, and yes, he was called rock..a small lovely stone, just like the rest of us. Remember, we ALL have new names.


NASB
Rev 2:17'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.'

BTW

1Co 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
1Co 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.

Actually, a small insignificant stone in Aramaic would be eben. That isn;t the word used, the word used is kepha, meaning Rock, a big one, like the one you build a house on so it doesn't shift when the winds blow.

 

[Matthan]

Like I said, they would rather cling to their legends than come to God through His word. It is the only pathway that God gave us that we might get to Him.

Beating your head against a wall....

Matthan

 

[Fireinfolding]

Praying should be done in private, and God will always hear...

Well, I usually do Matthan I wasnt praying before everyone for her. I was including myself along together with those who would keep her in their prayers.

Since we had a little stir between us (earlier) I thought it was in good faith to say so (as I felt convicted to say so).

Since Pam is drowning in aligators she might be a tad encouraged to actually know we are pulling for her.

Fireinfolding

 

[mont974x4]

Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic...no matter how much some wish it were.


And it wasn't in Latin either, for those who want it to be that.

 

[ScottBot]

Like I said, they would rather cling to their legends than come to God through His word. It is the only pathway that God gave us that we might get to Him.

Beating your head against a wall....

Matthan

You're right. What was I thinking. What would YOU like us to think it all means? Please don't refer me to the bible, because as it is plain from this conversation, we cannot agree on what language was used, what the translations mean, or what the interpretations of the different languages mean.

He said, she said, to-may-to, to-mah-to, who's on first. THis little tiff will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction until Christ returns and tells us all what's up.

For all I know, He may come back and say "No, no, no. I gave Peter a rock and told him to build my church with it." Its right down there at Caerarea. Lets go have a look."

 

[ScottBot]

Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic...no matter how much some wish it were.


And it wasn't in Latin either, for those who want it to be that.

WHat language did Jesus speak to the Apostles in. Its a simple question and a simple google search should be able to resolve. The original language provides the proper context. And the Greek original manuscript of Matthew is still being debated. There is still enough evidence to suggest an autograph in Aramaic was probable. And I don't know any credible person who would even consider a Latin autograph.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Simon son of Jonah, you are Peter

Look at the ministry Peter was given.

Peter, feed My sheep.

Peter, watch over the others...strengthen them.

Peter you have the keys...

AND finally, Peter is shown that the Old customs are to be changed...when it was he the Lord showed to get up and eat.

Although he was keeping the unclean animals away from himself, thinking it was a law, God showed him, otherwise.


It was no coincidence Peter was taken to the place and starving.
It was no coincidence it was PETER.

The mysteries of the Lord were poured forth onto Peter.
He may have had faults, but we see time and again the Spirit working through Peter.

Even Paul going up to him, knew he had to go to Peter directly to discuss the matter.

Since it was Peter whom the whole Church looked at.

Had it been Mark, the matter would not have been the same, or if it was Matthew.

Peter was the one all looked to for direction, and the Church itself was being hurt because of Peter's position amonst them all.

THIS is why it was his role modelship that mattered so deeply.

Otherwise, Paul would not have been so marked in bringing to to Peter's attention.

Peter was the one who led the Apostles in conversions that first day.

The mysteries of the faith are not mysteries when the
Spirit ordains that information for the sake of humanity to be defined and explained so we are continiously fed through the Spirit at the hands of Peter.

IF we were meant to have a mystery without definition, then the whole Bible would be moot.

Yes, the mysteries are there, but they are not hidden from our view...for we must have knowledge in order to understand why we do things.

Peter. 'Feed My sheep."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually, a small insignificant stone in Aramaic would be eben. That isn;t the word used, the word used is kepha, meaning Rock, a big one, like the one you build a house on so it doesn't shift when the winds blow.

The way it appears here seems to imply that eben means large building stones. I will stick with the Greek translation thank you very much.

Ezra 6:4 layers of large stones/069 'eben, three, and one layer of new timber,--and, as for the expenses, out of the house of the king, let them be given.

68 'eben eh'-ben from the root of 1129 through the meaning to build; a stone:--+ carbuncle, + mason, + plummet, (chalk-, hail-, head-, sling-)stone(-ny), (divers) weight(-s).

69 'eben eh'-ben (Aramaic) corresponding to 68:--stone.

1129 banah baw-naw' a primitive root; to build (literally and figuratively):--(begin to) build(-er), obtain children, make, repair, set (up), X surely.

 

[ScottBot]

Simon son of Jonah, you are Peter

Look at the ministry Peter was given.

Peter, feed My sheep.

Peter, watch over the others...strengthen them.

Peter you have the keys...

AND finally, Peter is shown that the Old customs are to be changed...when it was he the Lord showed to get up and eat.

Although he was keeping the unclean animals away from himself, thinking it was a law, God showed him, otherwise.


It was no coincidence Peter was taken to the place and starving.
It was no coincidence it was PETER.

The mysteries of the Lord were poured forth onto Peter.
He may have had faults, but we see time and again the Spirit working through Peter.

Even Paul going up to him, knew he had to go to Peter directly to discuss the matter.

Since it was Peter whom the whole Church looked at.

Had it been Mark, the matter would not have been the same, or if it was Matthew.

Peter was the one all looked to for direction, and the Church itself was being hurt because of Peter's position amonst them all.

THIS is why it was his role modelship that mattered so deeply.

Otherwise, Paul would not have been so marked in bringing to to Peter's attention.

Peter was the one who led the Apostles in conversions that first day.

The mysteries of the faith are not mysteries when the
Spirit ordains that information for the sake of humanity to be defined and explained so we are continiously fed through the Spirit at the hands of Peter.

IF we were meant to have a mystery without definition, then the whole Bible would be moot.

Yes, the mysteries are there, but they are not hidden from our view...for we must have knowledge in order to understand why we do things.

Peter. 'Feed My sheep."

Its all coincidence. YOu're reading too much into it.

 

[mont974x4]

The language He spoke is irrelevent. He spoke Aramaic but Matthew correctly, well the Holy Spirit through Matthew, translated when writing Greek. Furthermore, if you're theory is correct rock and Peter would be the same word...and they are not.

Claiming an Aramiac source, with no hostorical backing, is a dead end.

There was a person on CF a couple days ago touting the latin in a thread.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Have any of you guys ever notice that its "confession" (in nearly every place ) which is hit the hardest?

I just started noticing that.

It does appear "there" that it swerves off of Christ where it can (I noticed that in another place regarding the confession as well).

In all my years I never noticed that before.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Fireinfolding]

I think the early church was looking TO JESUS not Peter

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith

Fireinfolding

 

[mont974x4]

Have any of you guys ever notice that its "confession" (in nearly every place ) which is hit the hardest?

I just started noticing that.

It does appear "there" that it swerves off of Christ where it can (I noticed that in another place regarding the confession as well).

In all my years I never noticed that before.

Peace

Fireinfolding

I noticed it earlier today, that's why I posted those verses.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Have any of you guys ever notice that its "confession" (in nearly every place ) which is hit the hardest?

I just started noticing that.

It does appear "there" that it swerves off of Christ where it can (I noticed that in another place regarding the confession as well).

In all my years I never noticed that before.

Peace

Fireinfolding

I didn't either until I saw how words can be changed around to make it fit ones own doctrine or views.
I am just happy when all 3 Greek MSS agree LOL.

Byz./Maj.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

W-H ) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

Textus Rec.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

 

[ScottBot]

The language He spoke is irrelevent. He spoke Aramaic but Matthew correctly, well the Holy Spirit through Matthew, translated when writing Greek. Furthermore, if you're theory is correct rock and Peter would be the same word...and they are not.

Claiming an Aramiac source, with no hostorical backing, is a dead end.

There was a person on CF a couple days ago touting the latin in a thread.

Claiming that the Aramaic Primacy of the Gospel of Matthew has no historical backing? Aramaic Primacy was the prevailing thought until Erasmus cast a shadow of doubt on it in the 16th century (it took 1600 years to come up with something plausible enough to stick, and darn, right in the middle of the Enlightenment when the legitimacy of EVERYTHING was being questioned). There are a contingent of credible biblical scholars who believe that the Peshitta to be the closest to the original autograph.

 

[ScottBot]

I think the early church was looking TO JESUS not Peter

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith

Fireinfolding

Read the Acts of the Apostles just after the Pentecost. Everyone looked to Peter for guidance.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Its all coincidence. YOu're reading too much into it.