ECT Who is the 'Rock', Peter or Christ?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
And Peter himself called Jesus PETRA.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Moderator, the following website allows permission to post this magazine article in full:
You Can't Get Past this Rock
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...past-this-rock
Few texts have occasioned the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:18–19:
Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the Church. Yet many Protestants believe the two "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings: "Thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." They believe Petros, the first "rock," refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock," means a massive boulder—either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build his Church upon Peter but upon either himself or Peter’s faith.
This is not how Catholics understand this passage. There are ten reasons for why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.
We’re Not in Little Rock
1. There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.
There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock." There was no "small rock" to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:
Rocky Road
2. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition—"rock." Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use two different words for "rock" in the same verse?
Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the New Testament except when Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for "rock," but petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was used for his name.
3. There are several words the inspired author could have used for "rock" or "stone" in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common and were used interchangeably. Any connotation of small or large depends on context. The words simply mean "rock" or "stone."
In the Septuagint, in Joshua 5:2–3, "God said to Joshua, ‘Make flint knives and circumcise the people of Israel again the second time.’ So Joshua made flint knives [out of rocks]." One cannot make a stone knife out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock that is manageable by hand.
Though it can be argued that lithos is more commonly used for "small rock" or "stone," we have examples of it being used as "large stone" as well. In Matthew 28:2, it is used for the large stone that was used to seal the tomb of Christ. Christ refers to himself as a "stone" in Matthew 21:42–44. It is used as "small stone," for example, in Matthew 4:3, when the devil shows Jesus some small stones (Greek: lithoi) and tempts him to turn them into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up lithoi to stone Jesus. Perhaps most importantly, in 1 Peter 2:5, Peter himself uses lithoi to describe the people of God as "living stones . . . built into a spiritual house." He does not call the body of Christ petroi. The only word that is never used to denote "small stone" or "small rock" in the New Testament is petros.
Peter himself had an opportunity to use that word in 1 Peter 2:5, but he did not. The word petros is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to connote "small rock."
Carson also pointed out that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek, which was used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C., and even then it was confined largely to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D. Carson agrees with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid and honest statement about Matthew 16:18, Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
4. If Matthew wanted to distinguish between "rocks" in the text, he most likely would have used lithos, which could be used to refer to a large rock, although it, too (like petra), was more commonly used to denote a small stone. There is also a third word that Matthew could have used that always means "small stone" or "pebble": psephos. It is used this way twice in Revelation 2:17, when Jesus says, "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it."
What’s in a Name?
5. A simpler line of reasoning is found in the context of the passage. Our Lord says to Peter, "Blessed are you. . . . And so I say to you, you are Peter. . . . I will give to you the keys to the kingdom. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Jesus uses the word you seven times in just three verses. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, "But I will build my Church upon me." The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter.
In addition, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, the interpretation of Jesus building the Church upon himself does not fit the context.
6. The changing of Simon’s name to Peter is also significant and often overlooked. In Scripture, we find that when God revealed a new and radical calling to certain of his people, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, this is true in the calling of the patriarchs. Abram ("exalted father" in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham ("father of the multitudes"); Jacob ("supplanter") was changed to Israel ("one who prevails with God"). In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Abraham and Peter. Isaiah 51:1–2 says:
Jesus made Peter a true father over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true father in the faith (cf. Rom. 4:1–18; Jas. 2:21). It is fitting that Peter’s successors are called "pope" or "papa," as was Abraham (Luke 16:24).
God’s Prime Minister
7. When we understand that Christ is the true son of David who came to restore the prophetic kingdom of David, we understand that in Matthew 16, Christ, like the king of Israel, was establishing a "prime minister" among his ministers, the apostles, in the kingdom. Isaiah 22:20–22 gives insight into the ministry of the "prime minister" in ancient Israel:
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades," then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
No Christian would deny that Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. To whom does he give the keys? To Peter!
8. If we examine the text grammatically—"You are Peter, and on this rock"—"this rock" must refer to the closest noun. To say "this rock" refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence.
As an analogy, consider this sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun it. This would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the word rock.
If Jesus wanted to distinguish between rocks, he could have said: "You are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my Church." "This rock" would then have clearly referred to something other than Peter.
On Second Thought
9. Jesus does not speak in the third person when referring to Peter as the "rock." James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries claims:
But because "this rock" is a metaphor for Peter, it is natural to use the third person. Jesus does something similar in Matthew 21:42–44:
"This stone" refers to Jesus, just as "this rock" refers to Peter, but the third person is used in both cases because both the "rock" and the "stone" are metaphors.
10. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul declared, "No other foundation can any one lay except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ." In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus himself is called "the supernatural Rock." But neither of these passages means that Christ was speaking of himself as "the rock" in Matthew 16.
The same metaphor can be used in different places and with different meanings. For example, in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14, the apostles are referred to as the foundation of the Church. In Psalm 18:31 and 1 Samuel 2:2, "God alone" is our "rock." Yet in Isaiah 51:1–2, Abraham is called "rock."
God freely chooses to communicate his authority in varying degrees to members of the people of God in order to accomplish his governance and authority on the earth. God’s ministers participate in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry of Christ. Jesus Christ, the rock foundation of our faith, is certainly capable of making Peter the rock and the foundation of our faith in him.[/QUOTE]
You Can't Get Past this Rock
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...past-this-rock
Few texts have occasioned the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:18–19:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the Church. Yet many Protestants believe the two "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings: "Thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my church." They believe Petros, the first "rock," refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock," means a massive boulder—either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build his Church upon Peter but upon either himself or Peter’s faith.
This is not how Catholics understand this passage. There are ten reasons for why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.
We’re Not in Little Rock
1. There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.
There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:
[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock." There was no "small rock" to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:
The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)
Rocky Road
2. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition—"rock." Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use two different words for "rock" in the same verse?
Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used fifteen times to mean "rock," "rocks," or "rocky" in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the New Testament except when Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter.
It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for "rock," but petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter " petra," and so petros, the masculine form, was used for his name.
3. There are several words the inspired author could have used for "rock" or "stone" in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common and were used interchangeably. Any connotation of small or large depends on context. The words simply mean "rock" or "stone."
In the Septuagint, in Joshua 5:2–3, "God said to Joshua, ‘Make flint knives and circumcise the people of Israel again the second time.’ So Joshua made flint knives [out of rocks]." One cannot make a stone knife out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock that is manageable by hand.
Though it can be argued that lithos is more commonly used for "small rock" or "stone," we have examples of it being used as "large stone" as well. In Matthew 28:2, it is used for the large stone that was used to seal the tomb of Christ. Christ refers to himself as a "stone" in Matthew 21:42–44. It is used as "small stone," for example, in Matthew 4:3, when the devil shows Jesus some small stones (Greek: lithoi) and tempts him to turn them into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up lithoi to stone Jesus. Perhaps most importantly, in 1 Peter 2:5, Peter himself uses lithoi to describe the people of God as "living stones . . . built into a spiritual house." He does not call the body of Christ petroi. The only word that is never used to denote "small stone" or "small rock" in the New Testament is petros.
Peter himself had an opportunity to use that word in 1 Peter 2:5, but he did not. The word petros is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to connote "small rock."
Carson also pointed out that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek, which was used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C., and even then it was confined largely to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D. Carson agrees with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.
One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid and honest statement about Matthew 16:18, Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:
The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, Eerdmans, 98–99, 108)
4. If Matthew wanted to distinguish between "rocks" in the text, he most likely would have used lithos, which could be used to refer to a large rock, although it, too (like petra), was more commonly used to denote a small stone. There is also a third word that Matthew could have used that always means "small stone" or "pebble": psephos. It is used this way twice in Revelation 2:17, when Jesus says, "To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it."
What’s in a Name?
5. A simpler line of reasoning is found in the context of the passage. Our Lord says to Peter, "Blessed are you. . . . And so I say to you, you are Peter. . . . I will give to you the keys to the kingdom. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Jesus uses the word you seven times in just three verses. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, "But I will build my Church upon me." The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter.
In addition, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon the rock" (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, the interpretation of Jesus building the Church upon himself does not fit the context.
6. The changing of Simon’s name to Peter is also significant and often overlooked. In Scripture, we find that when God revealed a new and radical calling to certain of his people, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, this is true in the calling of the patriarchs. Abram ("exalted father" in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham ("father of the multitudes"); Jacob ("supplanter") was changed to Israel ("one who prevails with God"). In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Abraham and Peter. Isaiah 51:1–2 says:
Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.
Jesus made Peter a true father over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true father in the faith (cf. Rom. 4:1–18; Jas. 2:21). It is fitting that Peter’s successors are called "pope" or "papa," as was Abraham (Luke 16:24).
God’s Prime Minister
7. When we understand that Christ is the true son of David who came to restore the prophetic kingdom of David, we understand that in Matthew 16, Christ, like the king of Israel, was establishing a "prime minister" among his ministers, the apostles, in the kingdom. Isaiah 22:20–22 gives insight into the ministry of the "prime minister" in ancient Israel:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, "I have the keys of Death and Hades," then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens."
No Christian would deny that Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. To whom does he give the keys? To Peter!
8. If we examine the text grammatically—"You are Peter, and on this rock"—"this rock" must refer to the closest noun. To say "this rock" refers to Jesus, or to Peter’s declaration of faith, is to completely ignore the structure of the sentence.
As an analogy, consider this sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun it. This would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the word rock.
If Jesus wanted to distinguish between rocks, he could have said: "You are Peter, but upon this rock I will build my Church." "This rock" would then have clearly referred to something other than Peter.
On Second Thought
9. Jesus does not speak in the third person when referring to Peter as the "rock." James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries claims:
When Christ speaks to Peter, He does so in the second person; that is, direct address. Yet, the term "this rock" is third person (indirect address indicated by the use of taute), making the differentiation between "Peter" and "this rock" complete. . . . He is speaking to Peter, about the "rock." Hence, the text differentiates between Peter and the rock in two ways: the form of the word [petros and petra] and the person of address. (Answers to Catholic Claims, Crowne Publications, p. 105)
But because "this rock" is a metaphor for Peter, it is natural to use the third person. Jesus does something similar in Matthew 21:42–44:
Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?" . . . He who falls on this stone (ton lithon touton) will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him.
"This stone" refers to Jesus, just as "this rock" refers to Peter, but the third person is used in both cases because both the "rock" and the "stone" are metaphors.
10. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul declared, "No other foundation can any one lay except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ." In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jesus himself is called "the supernatural Rock." But neither of these passages means that Christ was speaking of himself as "the rock" in Matthew 16.
The same metaphor can be used in different places and with different meanings. For example, in Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14, the apostles are referred to as the foundation of the Church. In Psalm 18:31 and 1 Samuel 2:2, "God alone" is our "rock." Yet in Isaiah 51:1–2, Abraham is called "rock."
God freely chooses to communicate his authority in varying degrees to members of the people of God in order to accomplish his governance and authority on the earth. God’s ministers participate in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry of Christ. Jesus Christ, the rock foundation of our faith, is certainly capable of making Peter the rock and the foundation of our faith in him.[/QUOTE]
Try looking in the post of mine which you conveniently ignored. Post #18. I posted it there.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
I have no time to dig through that pile of errors. What is the verse number.
Not that it matters because it has nothing to do with the subject, which I have one, and you have lost.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
[h=1]Jimmy Akin - Defending Peter as the "rock" in Matthew's Gospel[/h]
So you're unwilling to consider your opponent's position?
I'm not in a rush. Just when you get the chance, it's there for you to read.
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
The Papacy: God’s Gift to the Church
by James Akin
http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church
Selected pieces
I want to begin by telling you a story. It is the story of a good and wise king who lived 3,000 years ago in the middle east. Although this king sometimes made mistakes–including serious ones, for which he was chastised–he still was a devout and pious king whom the Bible describes as a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14) (CUT)
(MORE) He appointed one particular minister who would serve as the chief steward of his house, rather like the President today has the White House Chief of Staff. This minister, who was accountable to King David alone, had the task of settling quarrels, keeping ministers in line, and in general keeping the house together and running smoothly.
When the king was away, this meant that the chief steward or chamberlain of the house was in charge. He was the head of the household when the king was away, and was second in command when the king was present (CUT)
(MORE) To symbolize his authority, the chamberlain had a special key which he carried in a pouch on his shoulder. This key symbolized the difference between him and the lesser ministers her oversaw. Other ministers could bind and loose–permit and prohibit activity in the household–but the chief steward or chamberlain could bind and lose in the greatest way, so what no one could undo his judgments. No one, except the king himself (CUT)
(MORE) Now why are those important lessons for us? Because today, for us, there is also a chamberlain for the people of God. When the time came for the Messiah to appear–great David’s Greater Son, the one who fulfilled God’s covenant with David, who himself is the new and perfect David–he did something very similar in setting up his kingdom.
The new kingdom would not be a merely national enterprise, like the old kingdom, but an international one which would include people of many nations. This made it an even bigger organization, which would need an even greater organizational structure. And so, to govern the members of his household, the New David, like the First David, appointed ministers. We call them apostles and bishops and priests and deacons, but that is who they are–Christ’s ministers, who oversee his household.
And as before, whenever you have a bunch of ministers, there are going to be conflicts that need to be settled, and for that you need a central authority–a chief minister who has charge over the others. If you don’t have a central authority to settle disputes, you will have chaos and the household will disintegrate into multiple competing sects. So when Jesus, the Son of David, went about setting up his kingdom and appointing its first ministers, he wisely set up a chief minister.
From the very beginning of his interaction with this man whom he would appoint, Jesus marked him specially, giving him a special, personal name. He did this in John 1:42, where we read that Andrew:
“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).”
So when Jesus met the man that he would make his chief steward–a man known as Simon bar-Jonah or Simon, the son of John–he have him a new name to specially mark him–the Aramaic word “Cephas” or, more properly, “Kepha,” which was later translated as “Peter” when the Church began to move into Gentile, Greek-speaking circles.
This new name was very significant since this was not an ordinary name. People at this time were not named “Kepha.” The word just means “Rock,” and it probably sounded almost as strange to their ears to give someone the nickname “Rock” we it would to ours. It would have sounded strange to Peter’s ears, and he would naturally wonder, “I just met this man. Why does he say I’m going to be called ‘Rock’ from now on? What does he have in store for me?”
Well, Peter would eventually find out. As Jesus gathered a group of disciples around him, Peter became their natural, de facto leader, and eventually Jesus chose to formalize this relationship, making Peter the official leader of the disciples. We read of that in Matthew 16, in the famous passage where Christ asks the disciples who people say he is. They indicate that the people aren’t sure and give various guesses at the identity of Christ. Then Jesus asks them who they–the disciples–think he is, and Peter answers correctly: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” prompting Jesus to reply:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17-19) (CUT)
Complete article, an important read - http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church
by James Akin
http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church
Selected pieces
I want to begin by telling you a story. It is the story of a good and wise king who lived 3,000 years ago in the middle east. Although this king sometimes made mistakes–including serious ones, for which he was chastised–he still was a devout and pious king whom the Bible describes as a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14) (CUT)
(MORE) He appointed one particular minister who would serve as the chief steward of his house, rather like the President today has the White House Chief of Staff. This minister, who was accountable to King David alone, had the task of settling quarrels, keeping ministers in line, and in general keeping the house together and running smoothly.
When the king was away, this meant that the chief steward or chamberlain of the house was in charge. He was the head of the household when the king was away, and was second in command when the king was present (CUT)
(MORE) To symbolize his authority, the chamberlain had a special key which he carried in a pouch on his shoulder. This key symbolized the difference between him and the lesser ministers her oversaw. Other ministers could bind and loose–permit and prohibit activity in the household–but the chief steward or chamberlain could bind and lose in the greatest way, so what no one could undo his judgments. No one, except the king himself (CUT)
(MORE) Now why are those important lessons for us? Because today, for us, there is also a chamberlain for the people of God. When the time came for the Messiah to appear–great David’s Greater Son, the one who fulfilled God’s covenant with David, who himself is the new and perfect David–he did something very similar in setting up his kingdom.
The new kingdom would not be a merely national enterprise, like the old kingdom, but an international one which would include people of many nations. This made it an even bigger organization, which would need an even greater organizational structure. And so, to govern the members of his household, the New David, like the First David, appointed ministers. We call them apostles and bishops and priests and deacons, but that is who they are–Christ’s ministers, who oversee his household.
And as before, whenever you have a bunch of ministers, there are going to be conflicts that need to be settled, and for that you need a central authority–a chief minister who has charge over the others. If you don’t have a central authority to settle disputes, you will have chaos and the household will disintegrate into multiple competing sects. So when Jesus, the Son of David, went about setting up his kingdom and appointing its first ministers, he wisely set up a chief minister.
From the very beginning of his interaction with this man whom he would appoint, Jesus marked him specially, giving him a special, personal name. He did this in John 1:42, where we read that Andrew:
“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).”
So when Jesus met the man that he would make his chief steward–a man known as Simon bar-Jonah or Simon, the son of John–he have him a new name to specially mark him–the Aramaic word “Cephas” or, more properly, “Kepha,” which was later translated as “Peter” when the Church began to move into Gentile, Greek-speaking circles.
This new name was very significant since this was not an ordinary name. People at this time were not named “Kepha.” The word just means “Rock,” and it probably sounded almost as strange to their ears to give someone the nickname “Rock” we it would to ours. It would have sounded strange to Peter’s ears, and he would naturally wonder, “I just met this man. Why does he say I’m going to be called ‘Rock’ from now on? What does he have in store for me?”
Well, Peter would eventually find out. As Jesus gathered a group of disciples around him, Peter became their natural, de facto leader, and eventually Jesus chose to formalize this relationship, making Peter the official leader of the disciples. We read of that in Matthew 16, in the famous passage where Christ asks the disciples who people say he is. They indicate that the people aren’t sure and give various guesses at the identity of Christ. Then Jesus asks them who they–the disciples–think he is, and Peter answers correctly: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” prompting Jesus to reply:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17-19) (CUT)
Complete article, an important read - http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church
oatmeal
Well-known member
Jesus did what he was told to do by his Father. He was obedient to God in word and deed.
Petros is a pebble, it is not a petra, an immoveable stone
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Peter (Cepas) was given the ministry to the Jews:
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal.2:9).
The Body of Christ is, by a huge majority, is made of of Gentiles and it was Paul who is the Apostle of the Gentiles:
"[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" (Rom.11:13).[/SIZE][/FONT]
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal.2:9).
The Body of Christ is, by a huge majority, is made of of Gentiles and it was Paul who is the Apostle of the Gentiles:
"[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" (Rom.11:13).[/SIZE][/FONT]
oatmeal
Well-known member
No it hasn't, the Greek is quite plain as to its meanings.
Petros is a small stone, petra is a big stone
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
oatmeal
Well-known member
No it has not.
Peter, by the way, is dead, and the dead cannot lead anyone for they have no consciousness.
Jesus Christ is the head of the body, not any human on earth
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
I repeat for the third time: Your error has already been addressed in Post 28 and Post 16. Please read the posts.
George Washington is dead too and we still have a president. Do you get it?
If you had read the historical article I had posted you would not have said that: http://jimmyakin.com/the-papacy-gods-gift-to-the-church
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, Peter was never the earthly leader of the Body of Christ. He was given the ministry to the Jews:
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal.2:9).
The Body of Christ is, by a huge majority, is made of of Gentiles and it was Paul who is the Apostle of the Gentiles:
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" (Rom.11:13).
You never address anyone's points "in depth." If you cannot copy and paste something you are lost!
oatmeal
Well-known member
But, maybe you noticed, it is not G. Washington, Peter is dead, he was not much of a rock, not like Jesus Christ, though he died, God raised him from the dead to die no more.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Flesh and blood has NOT revealed Who and What Jesus is to anyone. We are ALL living stones, built upon Christ, The Chief Cornerstone. Peter isn't who Jesus built His Church upon or we'd be called Peterians. We are CHRISTians. Jesus lives in us. We are pebbles, but in Him we are a Great Tower over all the enemies of faith and freedom. We are built into Him. We are members of His Body, no more and no less than any other member. God doesn't see as men see. He sees the lowest as the greatest. He sees rich men as poor. He sees wise men as fools. He looks upon the thoughts and intents of the heart. It is in humility that we approach God, not stature, doctrine or wealth. It is when we love that we receive His Presence, not when we try to please other men as the RCC does. It's God's Presence that matters, not our deeds. All our works are straw and gravel. Only what's done for Him will last. Only those who have revelation of Who Jesus is can come to God as perfected creatures, fellowshipping with their Lord and God. It is this revelation that Jesus was signifying, when He called Simon: "Petros." He made that obvious on the night He was arrested, when Peter fulfilled His Prophecy of betrayal. The ONLY difference between Peter and Judas is that God gave Peter repentance. Pray that YOU don't fall into temptation.
They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
The only root there is: is God's Presence. When you have The Living God inside of you, you cannot be tempted away from Him. He's worth more than ANY earthly pleasure. That is the ROCK that is what He was referring to: revelation. He reveals Himself to those who seek and search for Him with all of their heart. That's what Simon did. That's what we need to do. Not follow some clown in a girly outfit waving idols and making us kiss his ring to show submission; but seek after God and His Rewards. Seeking the reward of men causes you to get just that: the reward of pleasing men. That's all the reward you'll ever have if that's what you seek. Seek ETERNAL rewards. Seek Christ. Repent and believe The Gospel. Not a false god. We are ALL Ambassadors for Christ. We are all Living Epistles. There is no heavenly reward for having correct doctrine or following all the rules of the RCC. If there were: Jesus would have walked in Jewery. Period. He didn't. He wanted, by walking in rebellion against organized religion, to let us know that doing so would get us NOTHING from God. It is ONLY in His Presence that we receive ANY reward. Jesus came to earth to seek and to save that which was lost. What was lost? RELATIONSHIP!!! That's what was lost in the Garden of Eden. He wants to walk and talk with His creation. He wants us to recognize His Voice and walk with Him and talk with Him, every single day. Without that, our lives are meaningless. That's the whole point of creation: God wants some company. He reverences us FAR more than we could ever reverence Him. His Love is far greater, deeper, wider and higher than man's love. He holds that Love for us. We only reciprocate when we recognize, honor and reverence His Presence. It isn't in doctrine or slavery. It is in humility. Humble yourself before The Lord of The Universe, not a mere man. Especially not a man who is set up as an idol. The RCC is as phony as CNN.