What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?

[Strong in Him]

Jesus could have said "I am Jesus and upon your declaration of your faith I will build my Church" but instead renamed Simon and really said "You are Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build My Church."

Same word in English but doesn't appear to be the same in Greek.
In my interlinear Greek NT Peter is called Petros, capital P; yet when Jesus says "on this rock" he uses petra, small p and which, I understand, is the feminine form of Petros.

After this important renaming

Except that Jesus didn't rename him - Luke 5:8, "when Simon Peter saw this"; John 1:40, "Andrew, Simon Peter's brother".

In Isaiah the king gives the keys of the kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority.

ALL the disciples had authority. Even Judas had had it.
When they were choosing books to go into the NT they chose those that were written by apostles, friends of apostles or were true to Apostolic teaching. The early church devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles, Acts of the Apostles 2:42 - not just Peter. When Saul was converted he was taken to the Apostles, not just Peter.

Does it seem to you like only a coincidence that Jesus just happened to rename Simon as Rock in the very same sentence?

Well as he didn't rename him, and as all his disciples were given authority by their Lord, there's not really any "co-incidence".

 

[Strong in Him]

This is one aspect that many anti Pope people miss. I would encourage everyone to look through the Bible and see what it meant and under what circumstances God chose to rename someone.

Like I said, it seems he was called Simon Peter from the beginning - so there was no renaming.
Certainly when he fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus called him Simon, Mark 14:37.

 

[concretecamper]

Like I said

you didnt say

he was called Simon Peter from the beginning - so there was no renaming.

you've gotta be kidding me. Can't wait for you to expound on this.

Certainly when he fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus called him Simon, Mark 14:37.

Mark 14:37 And he cometh and findeth them sleeping. And he saith to Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? Couldst thou not watch one hour?

 

[Strong in Him]

you didnt say

Yes I did.; read my answer to the post before yours.

you've gotta be kidding me. Can't wait for you to expound on this.

Again, read my previous answer.
I started to write that and then went to watch tv, so you got your post in before I did - but it's all there.
In Luke 5 and at the beginning of John's Gospel, in fact nearly all the way through, he is called Simon Peter; that was his name.

Mark 14:37 And he cometh and findeth them sleeping. And he saith to Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? Couldst thou not watch one hour?

Did you actually read that verse and what I said?
I said that Jesus called him Simon - you can see it there in the verse that you wrote out. The person who wrote the Gospel, who is recounting the story, called him Peter - the LORD called him Simon.
He calls him Simon also in Luke 22:31.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes I did.; read my answer to the post before yours.

good grief, the old little pebble argument

Again, read my previous answer.
I started to write that and then went to watch tv, so you got your post in before I did - but it's all there.
In Luke 5 and at the beginning of John's Gospel, in fact nearly all the way through, he is called Simon Peter; that was his name.

his name was Simon bar Jona.

who is recounting the story, called him Peter - the LORD called him Simon.

precisely, the Lord called him Simon and changed his name. Thank you for proving me correct.

 

[Strong in Him]

good grief, the old little pebble argument.

And your answer is .....?

his name was Simon bar Jona.

You're completely ignoring the references in Luke 5 and John's Gospel where he is clearly called Simon Peter.

precisely, the Lord called him Simon and changed his name. Thank you for proving me correct.

Remind me, was the Garden of Gethsemane before or after Peter's declaration in Matthew 16?

On 2 occasions in Luke Jesus referred to this disciple as Simon - after he had apparently "changed his name. "

 

[concretecamper]

And your answer is .....?

instead of pasting explanations like some, I'll provide the source.
Patrick Madrid: Bam! Bam! The “Pebbles” Argument Goes Down

You're completely ignoring the references in Luke 5 and John's Gospel where he is clearly called Simon Peter

you are completley ignoring his name was Simon bar Jona.

Remind me, was the Garden of Gethsemane before or after Peter's declaration in Matthew 16?

On 2 occasions in Luke Jesus referred to this disciple as Simon - after he had apparently "changed his name. "

remind me again when the Church was founded? Hint: Acts

 

[Valletta]

Same word in English but doesn't appear to be the same in Greek.
In my interlinear Greek NT Peter is called Petros, capital P; yet when Jesus says "on this rock" he uses petra, small p and which, I understand, is the feminine form of Petros.



Except that Jesus didn't rename him - Luke 5:8, "when Simon Peter saw this"; John 1:40, "Andrew, Simon Peter's brother".



ALL the disciples had authority. Even Judas had had it.
When they were choosing books to go into the NT they chose those that were written by apostles, friends of apostles or were true to Apostolic teaching. The early church devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles, Acts of the Apostles 2:42 - not just Peter. When Saul was converted he was taken to the Apostles, not just Peter.



Well as he didn't rename him, and as all his disciples were given authority by their Lord, there's not really any "co-incidence".

you didnt say
you've gotta be kidding me. Can't wait for you to expound on this.
Mark 14:37 And he cometh and findeth them sleeping. And he saith to Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? Couldst thou not watch one hour?

Rock (Peter) is not a normal Jewish name, in fact God was referred to as "rock" many times in the Bible, so renaming Simon to Rock was indeed extraordinary. "Kepha" is the actual Aramaic name Jesus gave to Simon, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Kepha, which means Rock in Aramaic, is transliterated into the "Cephas," we know this is the original Aramaic name because it is preserved within the Koine Greek Biblical text.
As to authority, indeed there were ministers in the Davidic kingdom who served under the prime minister.
But Peter was the only Apostle given the keys to the kingdom, in the Davidic kingdom as per Isaiah the king would give the prime minister the keys as a sign of authority--the prime minister's word was to be as good as that of the king when the king was absent. The prime minister would actually wear the keys

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I can’t believe you guys really buy into this stuff. God is the Rock, the church was meant to be based on the Word of God. His unchanged Word.
Psalm 18:31
For who is God, but the Lord?
And who is a rock, except our God,

Proverbs 30 :5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

 

[concretecamper]

I can’t believe you guys really believe this stuff. God is the Rock, the church was meant to be based on the Word of God. His unchanged Word.
Psalm 18:31
For who is God, but the Lord?
And who is a rock, except our God,

Proverbs 30 :5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

100% agree. What that has to do with

I can’t believe you guys really believe this stuff

I'll never know.

 

[Strong in Him]

instead of pasting explanations like some, I'll provide the source.
Patrick Madrid: Bam! Bam! The “Pebbles” Argument Goes Down

I'd rather have had it in your own words, but so be it.

you are completley ignoring his name was Simon bar Jona.

You do realise that "bar" meant "son of" - see Bartimaeus, Mark 10:46.
Peter was Simon, son of Jona; so what? He is still referred to as Simon Peter, when he was called in Luke 5 and all through John's Gospel.
I have given those references a few times now and they have been ignored. When I pointed this out to you you still did not answer but turned it back on me and said that I was ignoring the "bar Jona" bit.

remind me again when the Church was founded? Hint: Acts

a) it was not founded in Acts 2, that's when the Spirit was poured out on all 120 believers, Acts of the Apostles 1:13, and they were given power to go out and proclaim the Gospel. Even after the disciples had seen the risen Christ and been taught by him, they still needed the Spirit's power to live for, and serve, Jesus.
b) again, you don't like something I've said, so you're changing the subject.
In the Garden of Gethsemane, which was AFTER Peter's declaration of who Jesus was, Jesus called Peter 'Simon'. That has nothing to do with when the church was 'founded'.

Actually, I don't think any of this matters two hoots.
What does it matter if Simon's name was actually changed or if Jesus thought it more appropriate to call him by a name that he already had? What does it matter if Peter was the first leader of the church, or not? None of that changes the Gospel.
Peter himself said that Jesus is the only name by which we are saved, Acts of the Apostles 4:12. We have eternal life, are born again and become children of God through Jesus, not Peter - and Peter would have been the first to have said so.

 

[Strong in Him]

Rock (Peter) is not a normal Jewish name, in fact God was referred to as "rock" many times in the Bible, so renaming Simon to Rock was indeed extraordinary. "Kepha" is the actual Aramaic name Jesus gave to Simon, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Kepha, which means Rock in Aramaic, is transliterated into the "Cephas," we know this is the original Aramaic name because it is preserved within the Koine Greek Biblical text.
As to authority, indeed there were ministers in the Davidic kingdom who served under the prime minister.
But Peter was the only Apostle given the keys to the kingdom, in the Davidic kingdom as per Isaiah the king would give the prime minister the keys as a sign of authority--the prime minister's word was to be as good as that of the king when the king was absent. The prime minister would actually wear the keys

Not that it matters because the Gospel is Jesus, not Peter, but I still don't agree that his name was changed. The disciple is called Simon Peter all through John's Gospel, and Jesus called him Simon twice after apparently changing his name. But you are correct in saying that God is the Rock. He is, and it is on him that the church is founded.
And whatever being given the keys to the Kingdom involved it is the Lord who saves and who builds his church.

 

[concretecamper]

b) again, you don't like something I've said, so you're changing the subject.

All I am doing is responding to you. If you want to stay on topic, don't broaden the discussion.

a) it was not founded in Acts 2, that's when the Spirit was poured out on all 120 believers, Acts of the Apostles 1:13, and they were given power to go out and proclaim the Gospel. Even after the disciples had seen the risen Christ and been taught by him, they still needed the Spirit's power to live for, and serve, Jesus.

what? Talk about changing the subject!

Peter was Simon, son of Jona; so what?

precisely, before Jesus changed his name. Thank you.

I have given those references a few times now and they have been ignored

they are not being ignored. Maybe YOU think they are relevant, maybe other don't.

Thank you for your non-inspired, fallible opinion. I and many other do not agree.

 

[Strong in Him]

All I am doing is responding to you. If you want to stay on topic, don't broaden the discussion.

No, you're not.
After you made a statement about Jesus changing Simon's name, I said that Jesus called him Simon twice more after that. Your response? You ignored the point.
Then I said it again and asked whether it was before or after Matt 16. Your response? "Remind me again when the church was founded" - like that has anything to do with what I asked.

what? Talk about changing the subject!

It was you who raised the subject of the church being founded, not me.

they are not being ignored. Maybe YOU think they are relevant, maybe other don't.

They ARE being ignored.
In Luke 5 and all the way through John's Gospel, the disciple is called Simon Peter - right from when he was called, he was Simon Peter. Matthew says he was "Simon, called Peter", Matthew 4:18.
These references say that his name was not changed to Peter; he already had that name.
If you don't have an answer for that; say so. It's no big deal and is not important to the Gospel. But that is what Scripture says.

Thank you for your non-inspired, fallible opinion. I and many other do not agree.

Not only ignoring my posts, but rudeness as well.

Look, this is no big deal, imo. It doesn't affect the Gospel, our salvation or mean that neither of us are Christians.
I disagree with you; you disagree with me - I shouldn't think either of us are going to lose any sleep over it. It would have been nice if you could have answered the Scriptures that I posted - preferably without being rude - but so be it.

I wish you well.

 

[Valletta]

Mark 3:16 "And to Simon he gave the name Peter:" Douay-Rheims

 

[concretecamper]

Look, this is no big deal, imo

your behavior suggests otherwise.

I disagree with you; you disagree with me

thank you for FINALLY figuring that out.

It would have been nice if you could have answered the Scriptures that I posted - preferably without being rude - but so be it.

I did respond with scripture, which you ignored. I am not being rude, I'm just not agreeing with YOUR personal fallible, non-Holy Spirit inspired opinion. It is nothing to get upset about.

 

[Strong in Him]

thank you for FINALLY figuring that out.
I did respond with scripture, which you ignored. I am not being rude, I'm just not agreeing with YOUR personal fallible, non-Holy Spirit inspired opinion. It is nothing to get upset about.

I get upset with anyone who takes bits of Scripture out of context and uses it to "prove" a point.
And you could have just said that you disagree with me, or my point of view - you didn't have to call it my personal, fallible and non Holy Spirit inspired opinion. That IS being rude, whatever you call it.

 

[Hmm]

I get upset with anyone who takes bits of Scripture out of context and uses it to "prove" a point.
And you could have just said that you disagree with me, or my point of view - you didn't have to call it my personal, fallible and non Holy Spirit inspired opinion. That IS being rude, whatever you call it.

It's also odd I think. Everyone's POV is personal and fallible. I like the Catholic church but the belief in its infallibility is itself simply another fallible belief. It's also arrogant to say that another person's opinion that's based on an entirely rational interpretation of scripture is not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[concretecamper]

I get upset with anyone who takes bits of Scripture out of context and uses it to "prove" a point.

Me too.

And you could have just said that you disagree with me, or my point of view - you didn't have to call it my personal, fallible and non Holy Spirit inspired opinion. That IS being rude, whatever you call it.

YOU didn't present it as YOUR point of view.

I like the Catholic church but the belief in its infallibility is itself simply another fallible belief.

Well, Christ commanded us to listen to the Church, He gave the Church authority, and He said that he that hears you hears Me, he that reject you rejects Me and the One who sent Me. In addition, Jesus relayed to Paul that He and His Church are One. So, the fact is that there is a Church that He established. It isn't some amorphous invisible cloud of believers. According to Christ it is an visible institution. It is authoritative. It has the power to bind and loose.

Are you more upset with the fact that your denomination doesn't have the hutzpah to claim they are the one true Church? According to Jesus, there is only One.

It's also arrogant to say that another person's opinion that's based on an entirely rational interpretation of scripture is not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Well, Jesus NEVER guaranteed the Holy Spirit to guide each individual with regards to interpreting scripture. That is His Church's job.

Instead of getting all sideways about what the Catholic Church claims, work harder on proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that your denomination is the Church Jesus was talking about.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Me too.

YOU didn't present it as YOUR point of view.

Well, Christ commanded us to listen to the Church, He gave the Church authority, and He said that he that hears you hears Me, he that reject you rejects Me and the One who sent Me. In addition, Jesus relayed to Paul that He and His Church are One. So, the fact is that there is a Church that He established. It isn't some amorphous invisible cloud of believers. According to Christ it is an visible institution. It is authoritative. It has the power to bind and loose.

Are you more upset with the fact that your denomination doesn't have the hutzpah to claim they are the one true Church? According to Jesus, there is only One.

Well, Jesus NEVER guaranteed the Holy Spirit to guide each individual with regards to interpreting scripture. That is His Church's job.

Instead of getting all sideways about what the Catholic Church claims, work harder on proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that your denomination is the Church Jesus was talking about.

Christ commanded us to obey His commandments. He did not say obey the Catholic church. I would be careful of anyone or church claiming to be equal or above God.

Jesus promises individuals the Holy Spirit for those who want to obey His laws
Jesus Promises Another Helper
John: 15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

We do not need a mediator, Jesus is our Mediator and you can pray directly to Him.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,