The word "Church" is not scriptural.

[JudaicChristian]

When you get right down to it, no English word is scriptural! ;)

It's even worse than that, almost nothing Christians do is scriptural! I saw some Christians drinking coffee. None of them could tell me where drinking coffee is in the Bible. This coffee practice is even known to happen within assemblies of God. I saw another Christian driving a car. I asked him which saint in the Bible drove a car. The devil must have had his tongue because he didn't answer.

I think perhaps he means, not the original text in the original language. My only concern is if the "Translation" is correct. I am not fond of interpretations in place of translations.

 

[follower of Christ]

I think perhaps he means, not the original text in the original language. My only concern is if the "Translation" is correct. I am not fond of interpretations in place of translations.[/size][/color]

The problem that exists is that word for word 'translations' often do not/cannot convey the intent of the texts.

For instance if I say I have a 'hot' car or a 'cool' stereo, an exact word for word translation is only going to confuse the reader in most cases. The rendering must convey the INTENT of the texts and an many cases that REQUIRES 'interpretation' as much as 'translation'.

Translation is an art form, not an exact science because of the many various ways in which words and phrases can be rendered.

 

[francisdesales]

I presume that Yahshua gave Simon the nick name "Peter." And so Yahshua was saying that although he calls Simon, Peter, (it is upon that Rock,) "God," whom was mentioned, prior in a sentence before. Old Testament scripture often called Yahwah, "The Rock." That would have been common knowledge to the Jews

When God gives someone a "nickname", doesn't that indicate something unusual in Scriptures?

The Old Testament calls Abraham a rock, as well. "Rock" is a metaphor with different meanings. Otherwise, the Scriptures would not call Peter "Kephas" if it ONLY could mean "God".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

*IF* Peter were actually this 'rock' then its VERY odd that Paul not only did so much of the writing for Gods word, but also even chastised Peter when Peter, the supposed leader of the church, fell into error.

So leadership is dependent upon literary output?

Where would that leave Jesus Christ in your scheme?

Furthermore, Peter "fell into error" in the realm of practice, not teaching doctrine.

Your verse is VERY ambiguous as far as saying what you seem to claim it says, yet the concept isnt support anywhere else in scripture that Ive seen.

You are trying to direct this conversation towards "Catholic Discussion", when my comment was on the commentary of a verse that "Rock" refered to the man "Simon". I did not say anything about Catholic doctrine. Try to limit yourself to that.

VERY odd that Christ was supposedly building the entire church on one man then that one man seems to fade into the shadows in Gods word for the most part...VERY odd indeed.

Yes, a lot of odd things happen in the Scriptures, like a man rising from the dead and a criminal executed by the Roman Empire becoming the basis for a religion that in 300 years, becomes the religion that "conquers the world".

The verse in question doesn't say that Peter BUILT the "entire church". Nor do I know of anyone who makes that claim in Catholic quarters.

*IF* Jesus had meant that He was building anything upon Peter the man He certainly could have made a less ambiguous statement....'upon YOU I will build My assembly' would have made it very clear.

I don't see how Jesus could have made a LESS ambiguous statement! It is quite clear, and even the uneducated fishermen could understand it... The issue is not whether it is ambiguous, but that it doesn't say what you WANT it to say...

Since He didnt, and since the rest of scripture doesnt support the idea that He did, then its only logical to assume that the passage is being misinterpreted by some.

Yes, indeed, the passage is being misinterpreted by some, which was my entire point...

Regards

 

[Rocksolid]

Translation is an art form, not an exact science because of the many various ways in which words and phrases can be rendered.

Your tagline is an example. "Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God." The verse doesn't mean "study" as modern people use the term. The NASB is accurate, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God."

 

[francisdesales]

Translation is an art form, not an exact science because of the many various ways in which words and phrases can be rendered.

Your tagline is an example. "Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God." The verse doesn't mean "study" as modern people use the term. The NASB is accurate, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God."

Good catch...

Make the Scriptures say what you want them to say. By reading the bible, one becomes approved to God... Quite a bit different from the verse's context.

So much for Christianity being a revealed religion.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

So leadership is dependent upon literary output?

Where would that leave Jesus Christ in your scheme?

How much do we see Jesus TEACHING compared to others in the NT ? How about Paul ? And Peter ?
*IF* Peter were this 'rock' that Christ was supposedly building His assembly on we absolutely should be hearing more from the man.

Furthermore, Peter "fell into error" in the realm of practice, not teaching doctrine.

And I realize your need to make them different, but DOCTRINAL deviation is the CAUSE of errant practice.
Had Peter kept his DOCTRINAL views in line with the Lords then he would not have strayed from the path.

You are trying to direct this conversation towards "Catholic Discussion", when my comment was on the commentary of a verse that "Rock" refered to the man "Simon". I did not say anything about Catholic doctrine. Try to limit yourself to that.

You need to learn to read then Francis because *I* was doing nothing of the sort in what you quoted of my post.

Yes, a lot of odd things happen in the Scriptures, like a man rising from the dead and a criminal executed by the Roman Empire becoming the basis for a religion that in 300 years, becomes the religion that "conquers the world".

The verse in question doesn't say that Peter BUILT the "entire church". Nor do I know of anyone who makes that claim in Catholic quarters.

now who is trying to steer this topic into an undesired direction ? Keep on topic please.

I don't see how Jesus could have made a LESS ambiguous statement! It is quite clear, and even the uneducated fishermen could understand it... .

Of course you dont see it. Because you have predecided the intent.
When one looks at the passage to see what it ACTUALLY says it does not say what you claim it does.
When one compares it to the REST of the NT, it is confirmed that Peter was no more and no less important than Paul...maybe less if anyything tho since Peter is ONLY the apostle to the Jew, while Paul is the apostle to the ENTIRE realm of gentiles.

The issue is not whether it is ambiguous, but that it doesn't say what you WANT it to say..

Like it or not it IS ambiguous as far as making any claims about Peter BEING this 'rock' that Christ is building His assembly upon.
You have your views and thats fine but you cannot prove Christs intent is what you claim it is.
When we have a doctrinal view that is based on one verse then we must look at the rest of the data to see if concurs. In this particular case the evidence as a whole does not agree with the concept that Peter was anything more than Paul...simply an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Yes, indeed, the passage is being misinterpreted by some, which was my entire point...

Regards

I agree...it is being misinterpreted and misused by some.

 

[follower of Christ]

Translation is an art form, not an exact science because of the many various ways in which words and phrases can be rendered.

Your tagline is an example. "Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God." The verse doesn't mean "study" as modern people use the term. The NASB is accurate, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God."

Huh.....do you know what the word 'context' means ?
What does that passage as a WHOLE talk about ?

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2Ti 2:15 KJV)

Now HOW is one "diligent" to 'rightly divide the WORD OF TRUTH', friend ?
How is one 'diligent' with the word of truth ?
Could it be thru STUDY ?

The word means to be diligent, to endeavor....and the CONTEXT shows that it is in reference TO the WORD of God....thus STUDY is precisely what it is talking about.

So your NASB is somewhat lacking, it would seem

You are correct.
That verse is a very good one since the word means to " use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest" ...and when used in a verse talking about the word of God in such a manner really needs to be rendered with an english word that CONVEYS the proper intent...to STUDY the word of truth and thus be 'diligent' with it..

 

[follower of Christ]

Good catch...

Make the Scriptures say what you want them to say. By reading the bible, one becomes approved to God... Quite a bit different from the verse's context.

So much for Christianity being a revealed religion.

Regards

You mean like making Jesus say that Peter was this supposed 'rock' while nothing else in scripture supports the idea ?

The CONTEXT of the verse in my signature is being diligent with the word of truth. 'Study' is a VERY good rendering since it lets the INTENT be known much more clearly.

 

[follower of Christ]

Ive made the points I felt to make here, but since this topic serves no purpose it simply isnt worth wasting time with.

God bless you all. Have wonderful afternoon

 

[Paidion]

When you get right down to it, no English word is scriptural!

Haven't you read English words in the King James Bible? Hundreds of thousands believe that to be the only Scripture that is inspired. :crazy

 

[Adullam]

When you get right down to it, no English word is scriptural!

Haven't you read English words in the King James Bible? Hundreds of thousands believe that to be the only Scripture that is inspired. :crazy

You mean the original English of course! ;)

 

[Rocksolid]

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2Ti 2:15 KJV)

Now HOW is one "diligent" to 'rightly divide the WORD OF TRUTH', friend ?
How is one 'diligent' with the word of truth ?
Could it be thru STUDY ?

Studying is learning. The context has nothing to do with learning. Workmen don't study (except incidentally). The surrounding verses are about using words. When the KJV was written, "study" had a different meaning. We are to diligently use, not study, the word of truth. (We should study, but this verse is not about that.)

 

[Pogo]

I don't agree with those who see Peter as being the "rock" that Christ intended to build His "assembly" upon! He did NOT tell Peter that "he" was the rock, after a discussion with Peter, He then said "this", what was discussed/explained, is the rock!

The ROCK is an understanding, or a contract, between Christ and us, if you will.

Matthew 16 KJV
(13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(14) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.
(15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(18) 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.

I see the above passage as Jesus asking His disciples who they think He really is?

After several disciples offer different opinions, Peter correctly offers that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Jehovah!

After congratulating Peter, Jesus acknowledges to Peter that, Peter, is indeed, Peter!

Again...the "rock" which Jesus is talking about, as I see it, is the understanding that those who correctly acknowledge Jesus as being the one, true, living Son, of the one true, living God, to those of THIS world...will be rewarded by Jesus acknowledging who we are before God, on Judgement Day, in the NEXT world!

i.e. - You correctly tell everyone who I am NOW, and I will correctly tell my Father, the angels, and everyone in heaven, who you are LATER!

THIS is the ROCK upon which Christ founded His church!!!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[francisdesales]

How much do we see Jesus TEACHING compared to others in the NT ? How about Paul ? And Peter ?
*IF* Peter were this 'rock' that Christ was supposedly building His assembly on we absolutely should be hearing more from the man.

I was under the impression that the writers of the NT were inspired by God, not by Peter or Paul. Thus, Paul's writings are not from "Paul", but from God. That Jesus made Simon the Rock that Jesus will build His Church upon does not mean that Peter would be the nexus of the new religion, the founding father, the primary literary point of contact. Jesus will build upon the solidity of the faith of Simon, a move that is inspired by the Father Himself.

And I realize your need to make them different, but DOCTRINAL deviation is the CAUSE of errant practice.

I don't need to make anything "different", because there is a distinction between sin and error in teaching.

We all fall short of God in practice, even WHEN we know proper theology and practice. What is ironic about Paul's position is that he ALSO was "all things to all men" at times. He too cut his hair short as part of the Nazarene vow and had Timothy circumcised. Paul points out that Peter should "practice what you preach", and Peter was not doing that when he sat with the Jews and ate separately. But was Paul free of those charges?

Had Peter kept his DOCTRINAL views in line with the Lords then he would not have strayed from the path.

"Strayed from the path" = sin. We all do it.

I am not aware of any teaching that Peter himself was sinless.

You need to learn to read then Francis because *I* was doing nothing of the sort in what you quoted of my post.

I need to learn to read... Ah, my old friend, ad hominem... I should have known you'd come back, since "follower of christ" makes it a habit to introduce you to the conversation inevitably...



Let's go back and read your own posts, sir.

Let's start with the very first paragraph you wrote to me on this thread...!

Personally I think this entire issue is yet another one of using ONE verse to twist into a whole doctrinal view that the rest of scripture does not support (since you seem to want to make an issue of what is 'supported' and what isnt). posted Monday, 7:08 am by "follower of christ".

It appears to me that YOU are making this an "issue" that I had not broached on this thread. Of course, the entire "twisting" of one verse to make a "whole doctrinal view" shows how innocent you are of NOT trying to make this into a Catholic discussion...

Now, read my posts before you made this one and tell me where I discussed the "Catholic doctrines" of Matthew 16...

I need to learn how to read...!

The verse in question doesn't say that Peter BUILT the "entire church". Nor do I know of anyone who makes that claim in Catholic quarters.

now who is trying to steer this topic into an undesired direction ? Keep on topic please.

I am. I am correcting YOUR words. The verse in question doesn't say that Peter built anything. You said that.

Of course you dont see it. Because you have predecided the intent.

Pot, meet kettle. You can't even read the passage, saying that Peter built the Church...

You have your views and thats fine but you cannot prove Christs intent is what you claim it is.

I am not. Take up your own advice and learn to read. I spoke about the misapplication of "Rock" to Jesus. I didn't bring up any Catholic Doctrines. You, upon your own decision, decided to bring that up. Then you complained that I told you not to make this a Catholic discussion thread, while continuing to do just that...

When we have a doctrinal view that is based on one verse then we must look at the rest of the data to see if concurs. In this particular case the evidence as a whole does not agree with the concept that Peter was anything more than Paul...simply an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Again, you are trying to make this a Catholic discussion thread. Obviously, I can refute you, from Scriptures alone, if necessary. However, this is not the place to do so.

If you cannot accept that, speak with the Moderators on why this policy is in effect.

 

[francisdesales]

You mean like making Jesus say that Peter was this supposed 'rock' while nothing else in scripture supports the idea ?

Really? WHO is Kephas in Scriptures?

Is it Jesus or is it Simon Peter...


The context of Matthew 16 is very clear on who the "rock" is...

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

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.

Here is the context...

Jesus asks "who am I?"
Simon answers "you {Jesus} are the Son of the Living God".
Jesus says that Simon is correct.
Jesus then says "you {Simon} are rock"

Simon identifies the Lord and the Lord identifies Simon.

The immediate sentence and the context of the passage itself does not allow Jesus to be the rock. It is Simon who is the Rock and it is Simon whom the Scriptures later calls the Rock. It is upon that rock that Jesus will build, not upon Himself.

Without going into any doctrinal issues, it is crystal clear that Jesus is calling Simon the Rock. Paul and John verify this separately. In John 1:41, Jesus tells Simon that Simon will be called Rock. Jesus doesn't tell Simon that "I am Rock". Paul also verifies this by telling us that Kephas witnessed the Risen Lord. The distinctiveness tells us that Kephas did not witness "himself" rise from the dead...

Clearly, it is doctrinal issues that force you to think otherwise, but the Scriptures, taken for what they are, tell us that Simon is the Rock in Matthew 16.

Regards

 

[JudaicChristian]

I believe that we all agree that Yahwah is called "The Rock," and that Yahshua is called "The Stone." And I think we all agree the Yahshua gave Simon the nick name Peter which means "Rock." The only question here is: Was Yahshua speaking of "God" being called "The Rock" even though he called Simon, Peter, which means Rock." So then, do you believe yahshua wanted the Congregation to be built upon God The Rock, or Simon whom he called Peter?

 

[francisdesales]

I believe that we all agree that Yahwah is called "The Rock," and that Yahshua is called "The Stone." And I think we all agree the Yahshua gave Simon the nick name Peter which means "Rock." The only question here is: Was Yahshua speaking of "God" being called "The Rock" even though he called Simon, Peter, which means Rock." So then, do you believe yahshua wanted the Congregation to be built upon God The Rock, or Simon whom he called Peter?

Take a gander at Eph 2:20.

In a sense, the Church is built upon the Apostles, in a different sense, it is built upon Christ.

Matthew 16 has Jesus building His Church/community/ekklesia upon Simon - whatever that might mean.

I am quite certain that Jesus was not calling Simon "God". The term "rock" is a metaphor that describes solidity. While God is the ultimate perfection of solidity, God can (and does) gift men with this attribute. We must remember that any solidity that Simon may have had is dependent upon God, not Simon (e.g. see Luke 22:31-32. Christ prayed for Simon to maintain the faith of the others, to be the "rock" for others...) God worked with Simon's natural abilities, but improved upon them through His Grace. That is why Simon recognized Jesus.

Regards

 

[JudaicChristian]

Take a gander at Eph 2:20.

In a sense, the Church is built upon the Apostles, in a different sense, it is built upon Christ.

Matthew 16 has Jesus building His Church/community/ekklesia upon Simon - whatever that might mean.

I am quite certain that Jesus was not calling Simon "God". The term "rock" is a metaphor that describes solidity. While God is the ultimate perfection of solidity, God can (and does) gift men with this attribute. We must remember that any solidity that Simon may have had is dependent upon God, not Simon (e.g. see Luke 22:31-32. Christ prayed for Simon to maintain the faith of the others, to be the "rock" for others...) God worked with Simon's natural abilities, but improved upon them through His Grace. That is why Simon recognized Jesus.

Regards

See Eph 2:22.

 

[francisdesales]

Take a gander at Eph 2:20.

In a sense, the Church is built upon the Apostles, in a different sense, it is built upon Christ.

Matthew 16 has Jesus building His Church/community/ekklesia upon Simon - whatever that might mean.

I am quite certain that Jesus was not calling Simon "God". The term "rock" is a metaphor that describes solidity. While God is the ultimate perfection of solidity, God can (and does) gift men with this attribute. We must remember that any solidity that Simon may have had is dependent upon God, not Simon (e.g. see Luke 22:31-32. Christ prayed for Simon to maintain the faith of the others, to be the "rock" for others...) God worked with Simon's natural abilities, but improved upon them through His Grace. That is why Simon recognized Jesus.

See Eph 2:22.

Naturally, the Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. My point from long ago is that Peter is also called "Rock" and upon THAT rock, the community is built upon. This rock is solid as a result of the Architect, God, who enabled Simon to identify and proclaim the Messiah - the purpose of the Church.

Regards