Christ is the Rock...not Peter - Here we go again!

[AVBunyan]

Volumes have been written on this subject (Matt. 16:18).

My interpretation of Matt 16:18

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (he is pointing to Peter)
and upon this rock (Christ is pointing or referencing himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now where do I get his? Well, forget history and tradition – what saith the scriptures?

Peter is a stone - John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Christ is “this rock.â€Â…

1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Deu 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

Life can be so simple when you have a bible you can believe without questioning what it says.

God bless

 

[thessalonian]

Volumes have been written on this subject (Matt. 16:18).

My interpretation of Matt 16:18

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, (he is pointing to Peter)
and upon this rock (Christ is pointing or referencing himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hmmm. I don't see what is in parenthesis in the text. They kinda left that pointing thing out so the english language would completely confuse everyone. Odly enough Kepha, contrary to what you say below means ROCK, not stone. Even in Greek lithos is stone. Petros is only used as little rock in some greek poetry. But we know from 1 John, the very verse that you site below that peter was called Cephas (which is a form of Kepha) which does not mean stone but rock. You can even go to the Bible linked in your post and it says Cephas means rock. Jesus would have said "thou are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.". There were not two words for stone and rock and so your rendition is highly unlikely. Further you don't post the next verse which says "I give YOU the keys to the kingdom....". So is YOU Jesus too? Where is the transition back to Peter? No, linguisticly it only makes sense if Jesus is speaking about Peter throughout the passage. Unless that is you can see fingerpointing in scripture. :-D : Further if one sees the obvious parrellel between this verse and Is 22:22-24 it seems highly unlikely that Jews was talking about himself, but rather the transition of human leadership from the Jewish leaders in matt 23 who sit on moses seat to Peter and the new leaders.

Now where do I get his? Well, forget history and tradition – what saith the scriptures?

Peter is a stone - John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

The word stone is not anywhere in that passage. Just click on your link to John 1:42 and it even says that Cephas means ROCK! silly. There were not separate words for stone and rock in aaramic and so your transalation and interpretation are verifiably false.

Christ is “this rock.â€Â…

1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Deu 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

Christ is the rock alright. We agree. Now how does that prevent peter from being the rock as well? Tell me who is the light of the world. Hint: John 8, and 9. Oh it's Jesus, very good AV. Oddly enough the light of the world is also Christians. See Matt 5. Christans are the light of the world because Christ works in and through them. It is not that there are two lights of the world but one. Paul says that God's grace works in him and of the works he does "yet not I but Christ lives in me". At his conversion " Paul is told, Saul Saul, why do you persecute ME". When Christians were perecuted so was Christ. Christians are the body of Christ.

Tell me, who is the foundation of the Church? Is it Christ (1 cor 3:11) or is it prophets and apostles. Two, two, two foundations in one.

So the dichotomy you raise is a false one.

By the way the book of Isaiha tells us that Abraham was the rock as well.

[1] "Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD;
look to the rock from which you were hewn,
and to the quarry from which you were digged.
[2] Look to Abraham your father
and to Sarah who bore you;

Life can be so simple when you have a bible you can believe without questioning what it says.

It does help to take the whole bible in to account rather than to proof text with a few passages based on pre-concieved notions. I know that's alot to ask. It's really not that difficult to accept on faith that Peter can be the rock through Christ working in him just as the apostles AND Christ are the foundation fo the Church by Christ working through the Apostles.

Haven't tangled with you in a while AV. This should be fun. :angel: Thanks for the thread. Error always shines light on truth.

Blessings

 

[AVBunyan]

The word stone is not anywhere in that passage. Just click on your link to John 1:42 and it even says that Cephas means ROCK! silly. There were not separate words for stone and rock in aaramic and so your transalation and interpretation are verifiably false.

I'm confused - here is the AV1611 King James...

John 1:42 (KJV) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

What am I missing here? Your profile may not be the KJV.

Again, Thess - my final authority is a King James Bible not the originals or copies or the aaramic or Bugs Bunny, etc. - I stick with the book I have in my hands - I see you and many others can't handle a King James Bible as it stands for it takes your religion apart.

God bless Thess 8-)

 

[Theoketos]

Again, Thess - my final authority is a King James Bible not the originals or copies or the aaramic or Bugs Bunny, etc. - I stick with the book I have in my hands - I see you and many others can't handle a King James Bible as it stands for it takes your religion apart

Would you then admit that if the KJV of the Bible is fallible, that is wrong on any point or that it has been fundamentally been changed, then Thess' interpritation would be right?

 

[AVBunyan]

Would you then admit that if the KJV of the Bible is fallible, that is wrong on any point or that it has been fundamentally been changed, then Thess' interpritation would be right?

Nope...

The King James Bible is the inspired word of God without error down to the italicized marks - my finial authority.

God bless

 

[Theoketos]

Ok which version of KJV?

 

[AVBunyan]

Ok which version of KJV?

Been through this before -

Answer - the one I have in my hands that you can get at Walmart for $5.95. 8-)

What is your final authority?

God bless

 

[Theoketos]

So lets pretend that we do not speak English, or even better, live before the first KJV or the KJV that bought at walmary was written.

Then what is your authority?

 

[AVBunyan]

So lets pretend that we do not speak English, or even better, live before the first KJV or the KJV that bought at walmary was written.

Then what is your authority?

The word of God was all over the place prior to 1611 - never said it wasn't. The different translations were fiannly perfected in 1611 - the standard is an Av1611 in English.

If I couldn't speak English today then I'd find a translation based upon the King James Bible or a foreign translation based upon the texxts the KJV came from and they would be reliable but...but...the final authority would still be the Kinig James Bible in English.

By the way you didn't answer my question...what is your final authority or do you even have one? :o

God bless

 

[Theoketos]

I think that we can both agree that the final authority is God.

(I would guess that we both agree this authority has been handed over to the Church, even if we disagree on what exactly the church is)

He is the Alpha and the Omega, God even before creation.

It comes down to a matter of how that authority is transmitted.

It is good that we can both agree that this authority, further, will never be prevailed against.

Amen?

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I think that we can both agree that the final authority is God.

2. (I would guess that we both agree this authority has been handed over to the Church, even if we disagree on what exactly the church is)

1. Yes, but how do you know exactly what God says?

2. We disagree - final authority has never been given to any church or any institution.

God bless

 

[Soma-Sight]

Personally I think Peter was "stoned" most of the time and not a Rock so to speak.

Just look how many times he messes up!

 

[thessalonian]

Av,

The simple fact is that Jesus spoke the passage in Aarmaic. We know that because Peter is called "Simon Bar Johna.". This is an Aaramic contruct. I don't want to get in to a KJV discussion. The simple fact is that in Aaramic there is only one word for rock/stone, whatever. The distinction you made cannot be made with the language. We know that the word spoken was Kepha from Peter being called Cephas. Now you might have a point if Jesus was pointing at himself and Peter but I don't see that anywhere in the text.

You can stand by your KVJ all you want. It didn't come about until 1611 so the claims you are making are ridiculous. Jesus and his Apostles didnt speak King James English. You complain about Papal infallibility, yet there is most certainly nothing in the Bible that says some 17th century translators are going to be infallible. But like I said lets stay on topic.

By the way nice of you to ignore my other points. Let's drill down and focus shall we.

Blessings

 

[fatboyluis]

1. Yes, but how do you know exactly what God says?

2. We disagree - final authority has never been given to any church or any institution.

1. yes how do we know if not by faith ?

2. then how would God continue to guide us if not through teachers and an authority to expell heresies, the church,

God Bless

 

[AVBunyan]

By the way nice of you to ignore my other points. Let's drill down and focus shall we. Blessings

Hi Thess – Since you ignore my Bible so why should I listen to you? I ignore your points - We have different final authorites so we will never agree. Mine is the book in my hand and yours is a church, traditioin, some bible, a pope, etc.

I don’t care if the Lord Jesus Christ spoke Martian – I have it exactly as God wants me to have it in English in a King James Bible – it is perfect as it stands and it appears you folks can’t stand it.

Peter is associated with a stone – the Lord is the Rock. It couldn’t be any clearer unless you reject the King James Bible – which you have done.

The Lord would not build a church on a sinner who cussed, lost his temper and deserted him. In fact the Lord would not and has not built his church on any man, including Paul. The LORD built the church on his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other foundation but Christ. I Cor. 3

Now you folks want Peter so you can say he got the keys so you can be in authority and lord it over men’s consciences – you want power and control. We don’t buy it – the book stands as it says and you can blow a gasket and strip out your clutch plates all you want but Peter is and was no rock – he crumbled when it came time to stand. After his conversion he was on fire but even then he had to be rebuked by Paul! A tough start for your first “popeâ€Â.

So, your first “pope†(yours not ours) was married, swore, deserted the Lord, and was rebuked by Paul – and you are going to build a church on Peter? Again, you folks want control and power and your gross misinterpretation plus the ignorance of your church members and unregenerate people who do not know their bibles have given you this loophole.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

2. then how would God continue to guide us if not through teachers and an authority to expell heresies, the church, God Bless

If you have the Holy Spirit in you along with a King James BIble, a humble and believing heart you won't need some earthly political institution controlling your conscience.

Read and believe your Bible! Are you ignorant? Can you read fifth grade English? Are you going to tolerate a church tellling you that you and others are to dumb to read God's precious words? The average word in a King James BIble is 5 letters or less :o - Is this too much for you? :o

God bless 8-)

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

So, your first “pope†(yours not ours) was married, swore, deserted the Lord, and was rebuked by Paul – and you are going to build a church on Peter?

So then you are saying that our Blessed Lord could not have chosen Peter, because he was imperfect?

David committed adultery with a woman and had her husband killed! Did then he cease to be king? Did Israel cease to be God's people?

The list can go on and on about how imperfect some of the most prominent men in Sacred Scripture were.

If anything, throughout Scripture, God often picks the weakest, to be made strong for His greater glory.

Consider David. He was the last to be even considered by Jesse to be God's chosen. However, despite his being a simple shepherd boy, God chose him and made him great.

Now, regarding the King James Bible, I don't know how credible it is.

However, if the translation says that Peter's name translates to "Stone", then it is just wrong.

Translation from the Attic Greek would support your theory. Yet, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. In Koine Greek, if Christ wanted to make a distinction he would have said, “Thou are Lythos, and upon this Kepha I will build my Churchâ€Â.

Even still, we must look at this verse in context. Peter just made a beautiful confession!

“Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.†Christ then responds with, “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah†For you are an insignificant pebble…..? …..I will give you keys to kingdom of heaven? This doesn’t add up.

Something else to consider: Why did Jesus call Peter “Son of Jonah�
In the Gospel of John, Christ calls Peter, Son of John.

In Matthew 12 the Pharisees ask for a sign from our Blessed Lord; To which He responds by saying just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
Here, Christ is using Jonah as sort of a shadow of Himself.
So when Christ says, Simon son of Jonah, He is hinting of a unique relationship between Himself and Peter. Of course they were not blood relations but, symbolically He was designating Peter as the “fstbornâ€Â, the one who would inherit the kingdomâ€Â.

Pax Christi,

Fulton

 

[Relic]

Here is a very good link about the Place Caesarea Philippi
and the words in which Jesus spoke to Peter:

• "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (KJV)

In this site you will find
a 5 Part article entitled:

The Gates of Hell.


Make sure you read the whole article. It is very interesting and gives the history of Pagan worship there and how Jesus used this place as an example. I have provided some excerpts from the site below.


Part 1 City of Pagans
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2065

excerpt:
Interestingly, Jesus chose to deliver a sort of “graduation speech†to his disciples at Caesarea Philippi. In that pagan setting, he encouraged his disciples to build a church that would overcome the worst evils.


Part 2: The Gates of Hell
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2066

excerpt:
When Jesus brought his disciples to the area, they must have been shocked. Caesarea Philippi was like a red-light district in their world and devout Jews would have avoided any contact with the despicable acts committed there.

It was a city of people eagerly knocking on the doors of hell.


Part 3: Jesus’ Challenge
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2067

Standing near the pagan temples of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples “Who do you say that I am?†Peter boldly replied, “You are the Son of the living God.†The disciples were probably stirred by the contrast between Jesus, the true and living God, and the false hopes of the pagans who trusted in “dead†gods.

Jesus continued, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it†(see Matt. 16:13–20).

Though Christian traditions debate the theological meaning of those words, it seems clear that Jesus’ words also had symbolic meaning. His church would be built on the “rock†of Caesarea Philippiâ€â€a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated.

Gates were defensive structures in the ancient world. By saying that the gates of hell would not overcome, Jesus suggested that those gates were going to be attacked.

Standing as they were at a literal “gate of Hades,†the disciples may have been overwhelmed by Jesus’ challenge. They had studied under their rabbi for several years, and now he was commissioning them to a huge task: to attack evil, and to build the church on the very places that were most filled with moral corruption.

Jesus presented a clear challenge with his words at Caesarea Philippi: He didn’t want his followers hiding from evil: He wanted them to storm the gates of hell.



Part 4: Not Ashamed
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2068


Part 5: On the Offense
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2069

excerpt:
Other Christians just try to avoid sinful culture altogether. They have been taught to go on the defenseâ€â€to hide in their churches, schools, and homes and to shut the door on the evil influences of culture.

But Jesus challenged his followers to be on the offenseâ€â€to proclaim the truth without shame.

Our schools and churches should become staging areas rather than fortresses; places that equip God’s people to confront a sinful world instead of hiding from it. Jesus knows that the pagan world will resist, but he challenges us to go there anyway, and to build his church in those very places that are most morally decayed.

As we listen to Jesus’ challenge today, we as Christians should ask ourselves the important question: Are we on defense or offense?


.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Now, regarding the King James Bible, I don't know how credible it is.

2. However, if the translation says that Peter's name translates to "Stone", then it is just wrong.

1. Well, history has determiend it to be pretty credible - the lives changed from bad to good by that book has determined it pretty credible - the revivals that came from those who beleived it are pretty credible - the missionaries who carried the KJV arouind the world did ok with that old "archaic" language. It's just you "educated" folks who can't understand it.

2. Mercy - the book disagrees with your doctrine so the book must be wrong :o

What is your final authority by the way? Do you have one? Greek words can mean anything depending who you read - the writer back then, etc.

Bottom line - the King James translators were no dummies - they had all the other corrupt manuscripts available on the table but the God who rules in the affairs had them put down "stone" in John 1:42 just to make sure saints would know that Christ is the Rock and Peter was just a stone just God had them put down Easter instead of passover, etc.

When your Greek disagrees with a King James Bible your Greek is wrong
and the KJV is right.

When my mother disagrees with a King James Bible she is wrong and the KJV is right.

When my wife disagrees with a King James Bible she is wrong and the KJV is right.

When your favorite Greek/Hebrew scholar disagrees with a King James Bible he is wrong and the KJV is right. :o

May God bless 8-)

 

[Relic]

Even still, we must look at this verse in context. Peter just made a beautiful confession!

“Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.†Christ then responds with, “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah†For you are an insignificant pebble…..? …..I will give you keys to kingdom of heaven? This doesn’t add up.

Something else to consider: Why did Jesus call Peter “Son of Jonah�
In the Gospel of John, Christ calls Peter, Son of John.

Holman Bible Dictionary
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T683

BAR-JONA
(bahr-joh' nuh) The surname of Simon Peter (Matthew 16:17) . The meaning is “son of John.â€Â


Easton's Bible Dictionary
http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T449

Son of Jonah, the patronymic of Peter ((Matthew 16:17); John 1:42), because his father's name was Jonas. (See PETER .)

In the Gospel of John, Christ calls Peter, Son of John.

In Matthew 12 the Pharisees ask for a sign from our Blessed Lord; To which He responds by saying just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
Here, Christ is using Jonah as sort of a shadow of Himself.

So when Christ says, Simon son of Jonah, He is hinting of a unique relationship between Himself and Peter. Of course they were not blood relations but, symbolically He was designating Peter as the “firstbornâ€Â, the one who would inherit the kingdomâ€Â.
Pax Christi,

Fulton

In regards to your words, of which, I have placed in bold:

Christ called Peter son of Jonah because his Father's name was just that!

and as far as the second half of that paragraph in which you wrote the following:
"He was designating Peter as the “firstbornâ€Â, the one who would inherit the kingdom"

That is so out of context, it doesn't make any sense in regards to Matthew 12 Because it wasn't referring to Peter at all! :o


.