MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[benedictus2]

I thank everyone who replied to my thread about why Peter surely cannot be the rock - I had actually thought a long time ago about the fact that Jesus wouldn’t necessarily have spoken in Greek - but then I reflected and thought that, whilst Aramaic was His native language - why not speak a word or two in Greek?

No doubt our Lord is quite capable of speaking in Greek. But in this particular case the evidence is against it.

(Especially when the two words Petros and petra are so similar as to make it into a linguistic kind of joke). The fact that Jesus calls Peter ‘Cephas’ in John1:42, in my opinion, only reinforces the point that Jesus was making when he used Greek instead of Aramaic to compare ‘Petros’ with ‘Petra’ in Matthew 16:18- after all, why not use it in John 1?

Well duh, That kind of convoluted reasoning does not make any sense.
How do you jump from Cephas to pebble.? Logic is in short supply here.

Never forget - petra means PEBBLE and this is what Jesus, I think, wanted to emphasize in Matthew 16:18,

You are a so losing the track of your arguments. What most evangelicals argue is petros means pebble but petra means rock.
But anyway, that distinction in Greek was only in classical Greek. That distinction was long gone by NT times. They were speaking Koine Greek and Koine Greek.

especially since He, just one verse earlier in 16:17 had referred to Peter as something else (Simon Bar-jona).

Okay another line that deserves a duh. Simon bar Jonah means Simon son of Jonah. How does that negate the fact that after addressing saying so He say you are Rock?

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus, I think, particularly contrasts Petros with Simon Bar-jona in order to bring out the word-play between ‘petra’ and Petros a verse later.

You think ? (Jury is still out on that one - there is still no evidence for it based on your previosui statements )

Jesus was not making any contrasting here at all. You will not get that out of the verses in any way. In Aramaic there is only one word for rock and that is Kepha and that is why we have Cephas. Cephas is not a small pebble in Aramaic.

It is an extremely important fact that, as well as being ‘Blessed’ Simon Bar-jona (verse 17), nevertheless he is also Peter - just a ‘pebble’ (petra) (verse 18) - and certainly no foundation for His Church.

Well sorry but no. Two thousand years of Christianity prove other wise. THIS is how the early Christians have always interpreted and known it to be. You come along 2000 years later and concoct a fairly tale so that you can deny Christ. You have to somehow rationalize your denial of His very words so you come up with interpretations that the Bible itself does not support.

 

[benedictus2]

However, here is a question I would like to put to you: Jesus says (I paraphrase): …‘and Scripture cannot be broken’ in John 10:35 (referring primarily to the OT - but also to the NT since Scripture surely should not necessarily be limited to the Law and the prophets –

And there staring you in the face is your quandary. The NT was not considered Scripture in Jesus’s times because it was not written yet.
The NT was written by the members of the Catholic Church. We say that the NT is Scripture only because the Catholic Church SAID SO. The Catholic Church who has always maintained that Peter is Rock.

As I said, your points are quite short on logic and reason.

a point I believe Jesus is making by the fact that he quotes Jer. 10:11 specifically when the Jews are condemning him for saying ‘I am the son of God’) - so surely we should not set up our theories about whether Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic or this, that or the other language (whichever fits your argument)?

Sorry but completely bogus reasoning. We are not setting up theories. The Bible shows them for a fact.

As a matter of fact, that Paul and John referred to Jesus as Cephas must have been the work of the Holy Spirit because He knew that come 2000 years later a certain Jesus7000 and will use the kind of convoluted reasoning to deny the very words of Christ Himself.

Please tell me what you think. It’s true that ‘petra’ not ‘kepha’ fits my argument, but then ‘petra’ is what is used in Scripture.

No petra does not fit your argument (it is full of holes but due to your glaring lack of historical knowledge you seem to think that it does so).

So, I have enumerated two possible theses that seem to me to disqualify the somewhat scornful retorts that I received.

Well deserved considering the kind of first post we are replying to.

Of the two, I am more inclined to go by the ‘And Scripture cannot be broken’ (I paraphrase) words of Jesus, and think that while there is the play on words, what Jesus says about Scripture in John 10:35 actually convinces me even more.

And this argument as I have illustrated above does not hold water.

For is it not ‘petra’ (not ‘kepha’) that is used in the scripture I quoted - Matthew 16:18? Or does the catholic Bible differ?

Nope. But unlike you, we have the back up of history and right thinking.

 

[benedictus2]

I am amazed at the tone of your message - I did think you were more educated than people such as tqualey. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. I will pray for you (by the way).

If T Qualey or Benedict is considered by you as not that educated, then I will have to conclude that based on your posts you have not gone past elementary.

 

[pablope]

You cannot surely say that Peter was the rock on which J

**Also - Peter was called ‘Satan’ by Jesus in Matthew 16:22-23, Peter famously denies Jesus three times a little later on in the Gospels and, even after Pentecost, Peter was reprimanded by Paul for compromising concerning the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).
**

oundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ’ (1 Corinthians 3:11)

I will deal with this portion of your post:

** Peter famously denies Jesus three times a little later on in the Gospels and, even after Pentecost, Peter was reprimanded by Paul for compromising concerning the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).
**

See, in the zeal of protestants to justify their opposition to Peter’s primacy, they stress the negative, trying to downgrade Peter, but never see the character and heart of Peter. You are always taught negativity and it shows.

Yes, Peter did deny Christ three times…but what is forgotten by protestants is his repentance after he realized his sin. The bible accounts do not do justice to Peter’s repentance, as these mostly only state “He wept bitterly.” But God knew what was in Peter’s heart, he genuinely repented, and this is why Jesus still used Peter to be His main shepherd.

St Paul persecuted Christians before he was called by Christ and he came of great the Apostle of the Gentiles. King David sinned, repented heartfully, and God still rewarded him with Solomon. Sinners abound, but it is the quality of one’s repentance, the heart, that Christ looks at.

Now, on to Gal 2: 11-14, another famous passage that speaks of character ( I suggest you read the whole of Chapter 2 to put it in context).

Yes, Paul rebukes Peter for his hypocrisy and moral fault, he offers a fraternal correction to Peter. Now, here protestants again stress the negative with zest and fail to see the lesson of this passage.

What does Peter do after this correction? He corrects himself. He sets the example. He is “HUMBLE”…one of the traits of Peter…his HUMILITY. With Peter’s authority, he does not rebuke Paul back, nor fires him…but instead accepts Paul correction of him. Peter understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof.

This again speaks of character and heart, traits Jesus saw in Peter.

Can you absolutely say to yourself, that are this traits in you?

 

[Being_Brave]

I’m trying to get the joke about a church being built on a pebble…but I think that because Jesus preached so highly of the meek, that he wouldn’t joke about it like that. I looked at the passages again to see if it made sense to me, but I really don’t think it was meant as a joke. You are definitely right, there are all kinds of metaphores in the Bible and some of them sound like scarcasm, but I understand this particular one to be His way of setting up leadership for his church after his death, not poking fun at one of his disciples. When I think of how the apostles knew to apoint a “replacement” for Judas’ leadership position after his death, I have to assume they knew He was serious about laying the foundations of how His church’s leadership was to be organized. (For Judas’ successor they chose Matthias in Acts 1:12-26).They learned from Jesus that they had an obligation to fill the position left after one of them died, and to continue the church that was “built” as it was designed by God.

I’m not a scholar by any means, so I’m curious if anyone can help answer this question: If Jesus were not apointing Peter as the first Pope, where else in scripture would the apostles have learned that they needed to continue filling their leadership positions after one of them died?

 

[benidict]

I am amazed at the tone of your message - I did think you were more educated than people such as tqualey. I am sorry to say that I was mistaken. I will pray for you (by the way).

nope. just a high school education…barely! and im not the brightest bulb in the batch. im postive that tqualey is much more educated than i. as is just about everyone here im sure. even the 5th graders…lol! and thank you for the prayers. ill take all of them i can get. Peace

 

[benidict]

No doubt our Lord is quite capable of speaking in Greek. But in this particular case the evidence is against it.

Well duh, That kind of convoluted reasoning does not make any sense.
How do you jump from Cephas to pebble.? Logic is in short supply here.

You are a so losing the track of your arguments. What most evangelicals argue is petros means pebble but petra means rock.
But anyway, that distinction in Greek was only in classical Greek. That distinction was long gone by NT times. They were speaking Koine Greek and Koine Greek.

Okay another line that deserves a duh. Simon bar Jonah means Simon son of Jonah. How does that negate the fact that after addressing saying so He say you are Rock?

You think ? (Jury is still out on that one - there is still no evidence for it based on your previosui statements )

Jesus was not making any contrasting here at all. You will not get that out of the verses in any way. In Aramaic there is only one word for rock and that is Kepha and that is why we have Cephas. Cephas is not a small pebble in Aramaic.

Well sorry but no. Two thousand years of Christianity prove other wise. THIS is how the early Christians have always interpreted and known it to be. You come along 2000 years later and concoct a fairly tale so that you can deny Christ. You have to somehow rationalize your denial of His very words so you come up with interpretations that the Bible itself does not support.

:bowdown::tiphat: your the best benedictus! like ive said before. i love the the fire you have for the truth! peace to you and yours.

 

[benidict]

If T Qualey or Benedict is considered by you as not that educated, then I will have to conclude that based on your posts you have not gone past elementary.

love it! and it could be that he has not gone beyond elementary. just kidding, i think he has. he may have to go back to school though, to get a degree in tact. lol!

 

[benedictus2]

Reply part 3. I had to cut the last one short as I was doing it in my lunch break.

Nevertheless - I appreciate greatly the fact that someone called my attention to Jesus’ reply to Peter after Peter has correctly stated that Jesus is the Messaiah, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). In my opinion, the fact that Jesus says ‘Blessed art thou’ immediately before calling him ‘Simon bar-Jona’ persuades me that Jesus was pleased with Peter’s response.

You came to that conclusion too??!! Well top marks! It is only stark staringly evident after all based on the text.

Jesus *was *

pleased at that point, would you not agree? Whereas at Matthew 16:23 He is obviously not pleased with Peter Hang on hold your horses. Whatever happened to verses 17 to 22.

Ahh yes, you suffer from this particular Evangelical disease of snip and chop the Scripture until it fits your theology.

Well, I refuse to let you run away from the Word of God so here it is:

Matthew 16: 13-19*

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” * *
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” ** Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.* For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Here is a more detailed explanation:

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.

The water in the cave is the origin of the Jordan River, where He was baptised and went with His disciples when they went baptizing. Think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now watering Gods’ people. You can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church.

Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.
Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Through the ages to this very day, his successors continue to pronounce the truth about who Jesus is and what His mission is all about.o

 

[benedictus2]

Whereas at Matthew 16:23 He is obviously not pleased with Peter - and even calls him Satan. The scripture reads: ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’.

Again, what ever happened to verse 21 and 22? My goodness, you really are suffering from Biblical shortsightedness. Here let me give you a 20/20 lens so that you can see this elephant that is verse 21-22 at 20 feet.

As a matter of fact let’s throw in the succeeding verses as well.

21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.* 22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”** 23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do*.”* 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.*25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

So do you see now why Jesus said get behind me Satan?

Probably not. So let’s give a little explanation.

Peter here was expressing a concern for the Lord which seemed like a good advise. I mean if you were to say to someone " I willt suffer and be tortured", any friend worth his salt will probably say “Well not if I can help it” and you would think: what a nice a friend.

But in the case of Jesus, this is actually a lie of the devil which Peter did not even know. The Jews had this vision of a triumphant Messiah who would crush the Roman Empire, not someone who will suffer. So obviously, Pete thought “No way can we let you suffer” which is why he cut off the ear of the guard when Jesus was arrested.

Jesus (and the devil) knew that to be the Messiah He must suffer. And just like the temptations in the desert, the devil is once again tempting Him not to go on with the suffering because this will spell the end of their hold on people.

So Jesus explains why He called him satan (for surely it was satan who has put this idea into Peter’s head) - You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

But here is something very important: Jesus is God so Jesus knew that Peter would say this right after He had chosen him to be the rock upon which He will build His Church. But, He chooses him anyway because it is not Peter who makes himself rock but Jesus who will make Peter rock, a solid foundation for his church. And his martyrdom will be the solid evidence for this.

The man who did not want Jesus to suffer, who did not understand that one must die to self to follow Christ, would after Pentecost do exactly that - die for Christ.*
*

 

[benedictus2]

In fact, Matthew 16: 23 does seem to me to caracterize many catholics (though I’m sure you will find grounds to disagree, dear brothers!)

Actually, if anything it characterizes evangelicals.

Here’s why:
First: Satan here was telling a lie but the lie looks so reasonable Peter unsuspectingly concludes it must be good. Well, evangelicals have been following false doctrines from the beginning. They are lies of the devil. But of course, like Peter they do not even have any idea that they are lies.

Second: Some evangelicals are into the prosperity Gospel thing. Probably even you Jesus7000. Yet, what did Jesus say after telling satan to get behind Him? He said - a true follower will take up his cross, and deny himself in order to follow Christ. The prosperity Gospel is a corruption of that teaching, another lie of the devil.

So based on the above, I would say that Evnagelical characterize verse 23.

Anyway, many thanks again, and I look forward to reading your responses. By the way, although I chose to call myself ‘Protestant’ on this chat thing, I would rather be called ‘someone who loves God’.

You could have fooled me. If you love God then you would not mangle His Word so.

I mean, I was brought up as a protestant but I have mainly been influenced by Derek Prince and Zac Poonen.

Questionable prncipalities. Follow the advice I gave you at my first post and you will learn. Extend your reading beyond this third rate authors.

Get hold of Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. That’s a good start though you might struggle a bit at first with it.

 

[benedictus2]

:bowdown::tiphat: your the best benedictus! like ive said before. i love the the fire you have for the truth! peace to you and yours.

Thank you And Peace and Joy of our Lord to you and yours.

 

[JustaServant]

In fact, Matthew 16: 23 does seem to me to caracterize many catholics (though I’m sure you will find grounds to disagree, dear brothers!)

Care to explain that remark?

 

[benidict]

Care to explain that remark?

hi my friend. he did in post 14. Peace

 

[JustaServant]

Hi. I was meaning the words ‘thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’. All the quotes of catholic ‘saints’ I read on this forum seem to suggest this to me very strongly. But I am trying to love Catholics (it’s just difficult to reconcile myself with the fact that I must love people who don’t follow the Scripture but who follow tradition -that includes most of my Polish wife’s family.) Jesus commanded us to love our enemy, did He not?

We’re the enemy?

 

[JustaServant]

hi my friend. he did in post 14. Peace

Thanks

 

[benedictus2]

Hi. I was meaning the words ‘thou savoureth not the things that be of God, but those that be of men’. All the quotes of catholic ‘saints’ I read on this forum seem to suggest this to me very strongly. But I am trying to love Catholics (it’s just difficult to reconcile myself with the fact that I must love people who don’t follow the Scripture but who follow tradition -that includes most of my Polish wife’s family.) Jesus commanded us to love our enemy, did He not?

I said before that you are short on knowledge.

Do you know that Scripture (here i mean the NT) before it was writtten was only Tradition. Before we had the canon of the Bible we only had tradition. The Bible came from the Traditions of the Church and the Gospels were meant to be catechesis.

Do you know that to determine the books that will make the cut and make it into the Bible, it was measured agains Tradition? You must think that somehow the Bible fell from the sky.

You don’t know it but you are actually making fallacious arguments the prime one being circular reasoning.

 

[benedictus2]

We’re the enemy?

Of lies. So I think I like being the enemy

 

[benidict]

We’re the enemy?

apparently so. he seems to have a particular degree of hostility, so im treating him with extra tolerance. id really like to find out what makes him tick. hes not the average pentacostal. most are pretty fun to converse with. part of me wants to really take him on, but for one thing benedictus is already doing a wonderful job of that. so im gonna play good cop this time out. peace

 

[benedictus2]

A wondeful piece by Fr Robert Barron for those who are not checking his website

Fr Barron Comments on Leaving the Church

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-Leaving-The-Church.aspx