What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Matthew 16:19

Aardverk said:
Yes 'hehe', I can.The majority of the world's Christians are Catholics and Orthodox. The obvious, child-like interpretation is also the official interpretation that they put upon it. It is implausible that any Catholic or any Orthodox Christian would use the sophistic interpretation that is being put upon it here. Why on earth would they? It runs counter to a major tenet of their belief. 'You see the point?'
Click to expand...
You shot over the bar again. What I mean is...or rather, how many of us here interpret the way you do???
 
Classik said:
You shot over the bar again. What I mean is...or rather, how many of us here interpret the way you do???
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I only said that it was the majority Christian interpretation.

We can all interpret how we choose so I you certainly don't have to accept the majority view. It carries no weight whatsoever.

My words were perfectly clear, so no, you really didn't misinterpret them - "Don't forget that the majority of Christians read it exactly the same way I do and as a child would."
 
Aardverk said:
I have no idea. I only said that it was the majority Christian interpretation. We can all interpret how we choose so I you certainly don't have to accept the majority view. It carries no weight whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Heavens! Hehe! now from a Penalty Kick to a cornerkick.
 
Classik said:
Heavens! Hehe! now from a Penalty Kick to a cornerkick.
Click to expand...
If you are implying that I have changed my position it would be more honest for you to say so. Do you have a problem with honesty and clarity?
 
Aardverk said:
If you are implying that I have changed my position it would be more honest for you to say so. Do you have a problem with honesty and clarity?
Click to expand...
NO! You know exactly what am talking about. Your last posts are quite self-contradictory.
 
Classik said:
NO! You know exactly what am talking about. Your last posts are quite self-contradictory.
Click to expand...

If you would like to explain where, I will address that very politely. If I really have contradicted myself I will humbly apologize. I'm sure you will too if you happen to be mistaken. :gah
 
Aardverk said:
There is nothing in the forum rules against you discussing the beliefs of the various Orthodox Churches. You can therefore comment upon the majority Orthodox + ............ view with impunity.

Now that you have made clear your view that 'rock' = 'faith', I am sure you can also explain why Jesus deliberately changed Simon's name to 'rock' and later said to him, 'Thou art 'Peter' (rock) and upon this 'rock' I will build my assembly'. Dismissing that very obvious link calls for a huge stretch of the imagination. The only reason for the fairly common Protestant interpretation is to get away from the Orthodox and Catholic claims to apostolic succession. That sees pretty obvious to me - as an impartial observer.
Click to expand...

Peter explains this Himself as all who have faith in Christ are "living stones" based upon the truth of Christ, not upon the peson of Peter. The Apostles are all called the foundation of living stones upon which all who have come to the living faith od Christ are built upon. So the fact that Peter was the first stone laid has little to do with a "church" that claims his name yet has shown itselfs to deny the truth that established Peter as that first stone.

So the truth of those who are upon the revelation of Peter is shown thoughtout the scriptures, and even in that Peter yeilded to Paul and Pauls gospel.

I think the whole world has seen that a certain so-called "church" has rejected all that Peter claimed and taught, concering the truth of Christ.

Just ask any little boy, and he will tell you that certain folks who claim to represent Peter and Christ are in fact very far from knowing either one of them.
 
Mitspa said:
Peter explains this Himself as all who have faith in Christ are "living stones" based upon the truth of Christ, not upon the peson of Peter. The Apostles are all called the foundation of living stones upon which all who have come to the living faith od Christ are built upon. So the fact that Peter was the first stone laid has little to do with a "church" that claims his name yet has shown itselfs to deny the truth that established Peter as that first stone.

So the truth of those who are upon the revelation of Peter is shown thoughtout the scriptures, and even in that Peter yeilded to Paul and Pauls gospel.

I think the whole world has seen that a certain so-called "church" has rejected all that Peter claimed and taught, concering the truth of Christ.

Just ask any little boy, and he will tell you that certain folks who claim to represent Peter and Christ are in fact very far from knowing either one of them.
Click to expand...

I am sorry Mitspa, I really do not intend to be rude by I don't think I follow your argument. I really would like to understand you as this has long been a mystery to me and no one else here has tried to explain it. Would it help me if you were to include relevant chapter and verse or are you using some other references?
 
Consider that God often changed the name of men, to represent that they now represented Him and the promises of God.

Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel? Simon became Peter because it was no longer about the man, but about the promise of God. Do you see and understand this as it relates to Peter?

If you really desire to learn I will be glad to help?
 
Mitspa said:
I agree but where does the power to deny oneself come from?
The sciptures are VERY CLEAR! that unless one becomes as a fool at His Cross they cannot be made made wise by His Life.

The Cross is the Key! For in it we see and reckon ourselves to be dead with Him. For unless one has died with Him they may have a religious mindset, but they cannot have the "mind of the Spirit" So again THE CROSS IS THE KEY OF DAVID THAT HE LAID UPON HIS SHOULDER.

Isa 22:22 And the KEY of the house of David will I lay upon His shoulder, so he shall open, and none shall shut; and He shall shut and none shall open
22:23 And I will fasten Him as with a NAIL, in a sure place.

This is clearly the Cross! and the Cross is clearly the Key!
Click to expand...

It's not the cross we receive power from as the cross is something we have to pick up in order to receive that power of the Holy Spirit to be able to carry that cross. The cross set us free of the bondage of sin which is our beginning of understanding that all things are done through Christ who has made a way for Gods Spirit to indwell us and empower us to continue in all the works of Christ as there is nothing we can do on our own that will prosper, but can do all things through Christ.
 
Mitspa said:
Consider that God often changed the name of men, to represent that they now represented Him and the promises of God.

Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel? Simon became Peter because it was no longer about the man, but about the promise of God. Do you see and understand this as it relates to Peter?
Click to expand...
No, I don't.

Often? Any more examples?
 
Aardverk said:
No, I don't.

Often? Any more examples?
Click to expand...

Thats pretty often! Very important examples I think?

can you not see that when God changes a mans name that it means more than just that He needs a new name, but that name God Gives has great meaning? Have you ever seen this truth of scripture?

You seemed to me, to have presented yourself as one who has biblical understanding? Did I get the wrong impression?

Its ok if you do not have much understanding, we only mess-up when we pretend we know more than what we really do.

That all comes from pride, and we all can be guilty of that!
But I can look at some of your post to see if you are trying to teach others?

Before I continue on in this discussion, I think I may do that?

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
 
Mitspa said:
[3] Thats pretty often! Very important examples I think?

can you not see that when God changes a mans name that it means more than just that He needs a new name, but that name God Gives has great meaning? Have you ever seen this truth of scripture?............
Click to expand...
Thank you Mitspa, let us examine just those three examples then.

1. Jacob changed to Israel. This is the most difficult because of the disputed meanings ascribed to the word 'Israel'. Can we assume that it means something like 'he who struggles with God' and that his role was as an example. Feel free to substitute a different meaning, there are several variations on this translation.

2. Abram changed to Abraham. I think we will both accept that Abraham means something like 'father', 'father of nations' etc. His role was pretty clear.

3. Simon changed to Peter. I don't think there is any dispute that Peter means rock. Jesus' later words make his role very clear to many of us.

Jacob is re-named specifically to suit his role.
Abram is re-named specifically to suit his role.
Simon is re-named specifically to suit his role.​

As you just said, "that name God Gives has great meaning" BUT, for some reason, people are arguing here that Simon was not re-named to suit his role. It is being claimed that he is just re-named (with a name that pretty clearly has a meaning) and the meaning that God intended by giving him a new name was far more convoluted that the other two examples you have given. The use of his name in Matthew 16:18 is claimed by some here to be purely coincidence and that God's meaning of the word 'rock' was quite different. :o

I don't think I have worded that very well but I am sure you will understand my meaning. I am reading 16:18 etc in a simple, child-like way, others are reading it in a complicated, sophistic way. No one has yet explained why the sophistic interpretation should be preferred. Generally people claim that the words of The Bible are clear, yet here people are going to great lengths to interpret the clear words in a complex way.

Barnes Notes on The Bible says:
'.........Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it.......... "
​
That sounds perfectly sensible to me especially in view of the undisputed words, 'thee' and 'thou' rather than 'it'. If someone wants to believe in a convoluted interpretation, that really is absolutely fine by me. My only objection is to the rude person who called me 'stupid' for my interpretation and then would not even try to explain her interpretation. No, that wasn't you, it was someone else on this forum who certainly should behave better than she does.

Thank you for your time Mitspa. If you have any other justification for you rinterpretation, I would be interested to read it.
 
Aardverk said:
Thank you Mitspa, let us examine just those three examples then.

1. Jacob changed to Israel. This is the most difficult because of the disputed meanings ascribed to the word 'Israel'. Can we assume that it means something like 'he who struggles with God' and that his role was as an example. Feel free to substitute a different meaning, there are several variations on this translation.

2. Abram changed to Abraham. I think we will both accept that Abraham means something like 'father', 'father of nations' etc. His role was pretty clear.

3. Simon changed to Peter. I don't think there is any dispute that Peter means rock. Jesus' later words make his role very clear to many of us.

Jacob is re-named specifically to suit his role.
Abram is re-named specifically to suit his role.
Simon is re-named specifically to suit his role.​

As you just said, "that name God Gives has great meaning" BUT, for some reason, people are arguing here that Simon was not re-named to suit his role. It is being claimed that he is just re-named (with a name that pretty clearly has a meaning) and the meaning that God intended by giving him a new name was far more convoluted that the other two examples you have given. The use of his name in Matthew 16:18 is claimed by some here to be purely coincidence and that God's meaning of the word 'rock' was quite different. :o

I don't think I have worded that very well but I am sure you will understand my meaning. I am reading 16:18 etc in a simple, child-like way, others are reading it in a complicated, sophistic way. No one has yet explained why the sophistic interpretation should be preferred. Generally people claim that the words of The Bible are clear, yet here people are going to great lengths to interpret the clear words in a complex way.

Barnes Notes on The Bible says:
'.........Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it.......... "
​
That sounds perfectly sensible to me especially in view of the undisputed words, 'thee' and 'thou' rather than 'it'. If someone wants to believe in a convoluted interpretation, that really is absolutely fine by me. My only objection is to the rude person who called me 'stupid' for my interpretation and then would not even try to explain her interpretation. No, that wasn't you, it was someone else on this forum who certainly should behave better than she does.

Thank you for your time Mitspa. If you have any other justification for you rinterpretation, I would be interested to read it.
Click to expand...

Well the main point I wanted to make on this thread was that the "key" is in fact the Cross. Also the sriptures go on to say that we all are living stones built upon Christ. Peter was that first stone. For all being built up as an spiritual house.

So any truth that was related for Peters sake is also a truth that belongs to all believers.

So again I see the point of the scripture, is not another debate on some group that claims Peter! But the truth of who Christ is and who we are IN HIM.

And how do we as believers enter into the truth of heaven and bring those things here to this world, where it is so needed!

The key is the Cross!
 
Classik said:
Well. Heaven decides earthly stuff: an interpretation by someone.
Click to expand...
It is written that "THE HEAVENS DO RULE"
there is a Kingdom of God, and that of the god of this world.
"the prince of the power of the air" The spirit that now works in the children of disobedience. Eph 2:2
 
When speaking of 'god of this world' or 'the prince of the air' etc. this is a most pleasant verse to remember...

Joh_12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top