Peter Is Not The Rock!

[archierieus]

Three reasons why Peter is the Rock:

1) The striking pun on the words πετρος and πετρα. This is quite difficult to ignore. Jesus is equating the Greek moniker of Simon and the rock upon which the church is built. On this point, to quibble at case endings shows a misunderstanding of the way language works.

Excuse me. 'Striking pun'? And 'Jesus is equating . . .' And again, 'to quibble at case endings shows a misunderstanding of the way language works'??????? Have you studied NT Greek? Have you done exegesis? Are you familiar with the principles and practice of NT exegesis? I am, I have done exegesis. What does Kittel have to say about this occurrence? BAGD? Louw-Nida? Incidentally, assuming that the speaker intended to use two forms of the same root word (which is not necessarily the case here) morphology and 'case endings' can DRAMATICALLY change the meaning of a word in NT Greek. Were you aware of that?

2) If Paul and John taught a strikingly similar version of this doctrine, then why should we object?

Ephesians 2:19-21: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”

Revelation 21:14: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Very well, Jesus as the chief cornerstone. The apostles and prophets as foundation. How many apostles and prophets? All, correct? Would you say that the total may have exceeded twenty-five? Not just one. Nor in these passages is any one of the prophets or apostles given preeminence over any other.

3) If Jesus is the rock, then the passage’s metaphor becomes non-sensical.

Not in the slightest. Christ is indeed the Master Builder, and the Bible identifies Him as such. Christ is also the Rock, and the Bible identifies Him as such. Christ is all in all and through all, as Paul the apostle says. From beginning to end, it is God's work--the Alpha and the Omega.

The image drawn is Jesus building upon himself.

Absolutely.

 

[archierieus]

You will find that Peter and Rock are the same word.

That is not accurate. There was more than one word for 'rock' in NT Greek, signifying different types of rocks. Some are large and stationary, some are rolling stones. Jesus described Peter as a 'rolling stone,' (no pun intended lol.) Jesus described Himself as a stationary Rock.

Jesus changed Simon's name to Rock much like how God changed Abrahms name to Abraham.

That did not happen. Such an event is neither recorded in Scripture, nor does the history of Peter's life bear that out. Jesus gave Peter the moniker in Jn. 1. Three and a half yearrs later, Peter STILL wasn't converted. He STILL was a 'rolling stone.' It was not till after the crucifixion that Peter was a changed man, a truly coverted believer. At that time, Jesus gave Peter no new moniker or name. But He did reinstate him and renewed his call to the ministry. Of all the apostles except Judas, Peter fell the hardest and the farthest. He alone had to be reinstated.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Excuse me. 'Striking pun'? And 'Jesus is equating . . .' And again, 'to quibble at case endings shows a misunderstanding of the way language works'??????? Have you studied NT Greek? Have you done exegesis? Are you familiar with the principles and practice of NT exegesis? I am, I have done exegesis. What does Kittel have to say about this occurrence? BAGD? Louw-Nida? Incidentally, assuming that the speaker intended to use two forms of the same root word (which is not necessarily the case here) morphology and 'case endings' can DRAMATICALLY change the meaning of a word in NT Greek. Were you aware of that?

Hi there. Ya gotta remember that their primary language is Latin.
I am sure the Orthodox would agree with M.L. here

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html

.....Martin Luther once said, “If I were younger, I would want to learn this language [Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture... For that reason they have said correctly: ‘The Jews drink out of the original spring, the Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, the Latins, however, out of the puddle.’”27 We can only wonder how Luther would characterize those of us who read the Scriptures in modern English.........

 

[archierieus]

What I am saying is that Jesus would have spoke in Aramaic and when he changed Simon's name in Matthew 16 he changed it to rock

No, Jesus did NOT change Simon's name in Mt. 16. He addressed him by the same nickname He had given him the first time He met him. Take a look at Jn. 1:42.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, Jesus did NOT change Simon's name in Mt. 16. He addressed him by the same nickname He had given him the first time He met him. Take a look at Jn. 1:42.

Dave

Hmm. That seems to be correct.

Edit: Ooops. Wrong verse LOL......

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

John 1:42 and he led him toward the Jesus in-gazing yet to him the Jesus said "thou are simwn <4613> the son of iwna <2495> thou shall be being called/klhqhsh <2564> (5701) khfaV <2786> which is being translated/ermhneuetai <2059> (5743) Peter/petroV <4074

 

[Brennin]

Right now the EP of Constantinople holds the designation "First among equals", a title that would be returned to the RC were we to reconcile.


And remember, when discussing who "put together the NT", the EO, RC and OO were all in communion at that time. So when any one of these three claims that their church had part in compiling the books of the NT, they are all correct.

If any bishop deserves the title primus inter pares, it is either the bishop of Jerusalem or the bishop of Antioch, not the bishop of Rome.

 

[archierieus]

Is it the Catholic Church's fault that it has the teachings in full and not only the bible?

Yknow Jack, I had a couple of Mormon missionaries tell me the same thing about their religion the other day. Sorry. Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the test of ALL teaching, ALL church tradition. It stands alone, and above everything else.

Dave​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If any bishop deserves the title primus inter pares, it is either the bishop of Jerusalem or the bishop of Antioch, not the bishop of Rome.

Greetings. I am still wondering who this guy is. Was he a bishop of some sort?

Reve 2:13 I have seen [*the works of thee and] where thou are dwelling the-where the throne of the Satan and thou are holding the name of Me, and not disown the faith of Me [*and] even in the days [*in which] Antipas, the witness of Me, the faithful, who was killed beside ye where the Satan is dwelling.

 

[beamishboy]

Wow. First time I noticed that part. Quick, where is the sign up paper!!!!

Me too! I had better join in the frenzy since Rome has spoken and we are without excuse. There's no sign up paper, silly!!! Just go and get yourself a rosary, the Sacred Heart of Mary, the Immaculate Heart and remember to say "Credo" to the pronouncements of Rome and all will be well.

 

[beamishboy]

Peter's body? I give that claim about as much credibility as the multiple, mutually exclusive claims of many RC churches to the "Holy Prepuce." But even if the RCC had Peter's body, that would at most prove he died in Rome.

Forgive me but I thought "prepuce" was a bad word. We study that in sex education though.

 

[Rhamiel]

Brennin

If any bishop deserves the title primus inter pares, it is either the bishop of Jerusalem or the bishop of Antioch, not the bishop of Rome.

funny that Antioch does not agree with you on that, even the Orthodox understand that Rome at least had a place of honor before the schism, we dissagree on what the ment but we all agree it was there

 

[beamishboy]

Yknow Jack, I had a couple of Mormon missionaries tell me the same thing about their religion the other day. Sorry. Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the test of ALL teaching, ALL church tradition. It stands alone, and above everything else.

Dave​

I entirely agree. I just wrote a little post in another thread about the New Testament and Oral Tradition which I think would be most suitable if I re-post it here. I wrote that just an hour or so ago and it was in reply to Philothei's question if I believed the Bible fell from the sky just because I stated that it was not the creation of the church. Here it is:

THE BEAMISHBOY ON THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

No, of course the Bible didn't fall down from heaven. Let's just look at the New Testament. We'll begin with the Gospels. These are books written about the life and teachings of Jesus. How did the Evangelists do it? Just sit in a dark room and write? No, they INVESTIGATED, did their research, talked to eyewitnesses (as our courts would do today) and they wrote the gospels.

Why did they bother to write? Why not just leave it to that wonderful whispering from ear to ear as a part of Oral Tradition? One of the evangelists explains why they did so - so that the account would be orderly and reliable. If the NT wasn't written and we depended entirely on Oral Tradition, that would be the end of our faith. It wouldn't be orderly and worse, new-fangled doctrines that are totally anti-apostolic would creep in and be defended as Oral Tradition.

Some of you will probably say that's the process of a Western legalistic mind that has seen too many court-room serials. That's not how the early disciples of Jesus would think, you may exclaim.

Wrong, my dear folks!!! I didn't make anything up. I was just using the same words as Luke. Read for yourselves:


Luke 1:1-3 (New International Version)

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you...

The Bible didn't just fall down from the sky. It was researched and investigated by the writers. Many of them were eye-witnesses themselves. More than three quarters of the NT were written by apostles. And because of this, it is reliable.

Personally, I think it is sacrilegious to say that the church decided on the Canon. Those of us who have read Metzger on the Canon of the New Testament will know that there were criteria used in the selection of the canonical works. Such criteria were to ensure that the books were written by either the Apostles or men who worked very closely with the Apostles and could have written under supervision of or even under orders by the Apostles. Let me illustrate:

If the beamishboy had lived in those times and the Apostle John asked the beamishboy to write a gospel under his supervision, I might have come up with a canonical Gospel according to the Beamishboy. But, effectively, it was probably as good as one written by John except that the beamishboy's style might have been more energetic and emphatic. But John most certainly would read through it before sending it to Galilee Publishers for publication.

To say that the church chose the books that made the Word of God is arrogant and wrong. The Word of God was written and we recognised the books that made the Word of God. There's something intrinsically special about God's word. Not believing this is to disbelieve the essence of God's word. In fact what you guys are saying is a bit like someone telling me, "Beamishboy, there's a plate of apples. Farmer Tom picked up lots of fruits from his orchard and he decided that what's on your plate are apples." No!!! Apples are apples whether Farmer Tom existed or not. What Farmer Tom did was to put the apples together and they end up on my plate. Had he picked up a lemon and put it on my plate of apples, I would've picked up the lemon and put it aside. It's not canonical, you see.

The trouble with most Christians is that they have not read the NON-CANONICAL books. Modern culture and popular novels (like Dan Brown's) tend to make these non-canonical books appear like they can rival our canonical books. As it so happens, the beamishboy has read quite a few non-canonical books including apocryphal and heretical gospels, epistles, apocalypses and I can assure you they are not at all like the canonical books. They stand out like so many sore thumbs.

I admit there are fringe books - they are a little difficult to tell if they should belong to the canon. But have no fear, folksies and blokesies!!! The fact that they are fringe and you can't tell them much means that they aren't going to lead you astray with non-apostolic doctrines. They may just be edifying, that's all. The minute they threaten to lead us astray, our Christian barometer will sound the alarm and we'll toss it away as a heretical book. Didn't Jesus promise us the Holy Spirit who will dwell in us and teach us? That's the Christian barometer that Jesus has planted in us.

The danger of Tradition is it has the effect of rendering our Christian barometers dysfunctional. A doctrine that would have sounded the alarm in a Christian for being unapostolic or even anti-apostolic will escape unnoticed because the poor chap is told that the doctrine came from the Apostles by Oral Tradition. You see how deceptively dangerous it is?

If you insist on Oral Tradition as reliable, I have a few questions for you or anyone for that matter:

1. Who gave the Oral Tradition, ie who started it as opposed to perpetuate it?
2. Is the list of those who STARTED the different aspects of Oral Tradition exhaustive?
3. Does anyone know precisely which particular doctrine in Oral Tradition came from whom and the approximate date of creation of that Oral statement?
4. Is Oral Tradition a continuing thing? If the Apostles had been particularly diligent, could they have written down all of the Oral Tradition or did some of it come about or develop after the Apostles?

I'm sure you can see what I'm driving at. I don't like the ambiguity of Oral Tradition. It's as if anything goes. If X says that Mary was assumed into heaven and I question that, he just says it's in Oral Tradition and that is supposed to satisfy me. But who started the "tradition" that she was assumed into heaven? The origin of doctrines that are justified by Oral Tradition is extremely hazy. Nobody knows but everyone must believe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

THE BEAMISHBOY ON THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

No, of course the Bible didn't fall down from heaven. Let's just look at the New Testament. We'll begin with the Gospels.

I always felt it helped if one read it as if it was "fallen from heaven". I know I do.

Isaiah 21:9 And behold this! cometh a chariot of man, pair of horsemen. And he is responding and is saying, "she fell, she fell, Babylon; and all of graven-images of her gods/elohiym he broke to land".

Reve 14:8 And another messenger, second-one, follows saying she falls, she falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations.

 

[beamishboy]

I always felt it helped if one read it as if it was "fallen from heaven". I know I do.
.

Yes, the Bible is so reliable and all-sufficient that it does feel as if it fell from heaven.

 

[lionroar0]

Yknow Jack, I had a couple of Mormon missionaries tell me the same thing about their religion the other day. Sorry. Sola Scriptura. The Bible is the test of ALL teaching, ALL church tradition. It stands alone, and above everything else.

Dave​

And on what is Sola Scriptura based on?

Peace

 

[Brennin]

Forgive me but I thought "prepuce" was a bad word. We study that in sex education though.

It should not be a bad word. It is simply another word for foreskin.

 

[Brennin]

Brennin
funny that Antioch does not agree with you on that, even the Orthodox understand that Rome at least had a place of honor before the schism, we dissagree on what the ment but we all agree it was there

That's because they've bought into the Roman fable. The "primacy of honor" of the Roman see has nothing to do with Peter being bishop of Rome (which he was not). Rather, it has to do with the fact that Rome was the most important city of the Roman Empire.

 

[beamishboy]

And on what is Sola Scriptura based on?

Peace

On common sense. I have already shown that people can't even tell where they got their Tradition from. Goodness! They don't even what the full ambit of that Tradition is and which tradition is attributable precisely to whom. What else have we got? The best bet is the Apostles' writings to tell us what the Apostles taught. Even the courts would have agreed with us here.

 

[beamishboy]

That's because they've bought into the Roman fable. The "primacy of honor" of the Roman see has nothing to do with Peter being bishop of Rome (which he was not). Rather, it has to do with the fact that Rome was the most important city of the Roman Empire.

For the past 400 years when we see the glory of the British Empire, I suppose London should be the seat of all power and authority for us. Hehe.

 

[lionroar0]

On common sense. I have already shown that people can't even tell where they got their Tradition from. Goodness! They don't even what the full ambit of that Tradition is and which tradition is attributable precisely to whom. What else have we got? The best bet is the Apostles' writings to tell us what the Apostles taught. Even the courts would have agreed with us here.

That's not a responce. MY common sence says Tradition it came from God. Jesus gave it to the Apostles, then they gave it to some one else and so on till now. And some of it was written down.

What is Sola Scriptura based on?

Peace