R
rfournier103
Guest
Does anyone else here think that Mr. Lyons isn’t listening; but just waiting for his turn to cut-and-paste quotes from Scripture?
I can’t believe this thread has lasted this long…
FROM POST 246…
Since you have so many opinions; I’m sure you must have one for my first and second defenses.
I can’t believe this thread has lasted this long…
FROM POST 246…
Still waiting for an answer to this question.First of all, why would Jesus give Simon the name Peter if he wasn’t the rock? Just for kicks? No. He is the rock.
I haven’t seen a rebuttal for this one, either. Are you EVER going reply to what we have to say BEFORE you fling your next objection at us??? There’s an old saying that goes: “if you can’t dazzle 'em with brilliance; baffle 'em with b******t.” Ever heard that one?Secondly, if Peter isn’t the rock; why would Jesus give Peter ALONE the Keys to the Kingdom? The ONLY other time in Scripture that ANYONE receives a key of any kind is Isaiah 22:15-25. where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). This is a clear example of the deputization of Peter. No one else was deputized in this way.
Since you have so many opinions; I’m sure you must have one for my first and second defenses.
FROM POST 251…Thirdly, if we look at John 21:15-17 we see that Jesus is placing Peter in a position of leadership that the other Apostles do not have.
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Jesus didn’t single out Peter for extra special instruction because he was a bigger dunce than the other eleven; Jesus was giving him his marching orders. It seems pretty obvious to so many that Peter IS the rock…
Protestantism is a whole theology founded on the “protesting” of Catholic theology and the Church; so therefore if one were to accept that Peter were indeed the rock; a Protestant would have to come to grips with the fact that he was in the wrong church.
Of course the Pentecostal minister denies that Peter is the rock (even though Peter’s name IS rock); because if he didn’t, then he’s just another guy with a Bible possessing no more authority than you or I. And if THAT were true; we wouldn’t need him at all!!!
I am curious as to which Protestant community you belong to, Bernard. Would you care to share with the rest of the class?
Are you ever going to answer what I had to say?We may not convince you that Peter was the rock - I can tell you are Protestant to the bone - but let me give you my deepest assurance… you will never convince us he isn’t.
You never even addressed my citation of John 21. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed. This is clearly Jesus putting Peter in a position of authority - thereby having Peter’s ministry continue what Christ started. Peter would need to be a rock to govern the fledgling Church in the face of so many challenges. The first pastor of the original mega-Church… hand-picked by Jesus Christ Himself!
I don’t think you’ve ever addressed why Jesus would rename Simon “Peter” if he wasn’t intended to be the rock.
Please look at John 1:42. Jesus renames Simon ‘Kephas’ (Rock) here, too. No mention of Peter’s faith, spirituality, or anything other than the person of Peter.
You cited 1 Cor. 10:4. Jesus is most definitely the Rock being spoken of in this passage. Does this mean that He was in error when he renamed Simon “Peter” in John and Matthew? How can they both be “ROCK”? Is it possible that the Bible can allow a title to be held by more than one person?
In Ephesians 2:20 ~ the Apostles are called the “foundation of the Church”.
In 1 Corinthians 3:11 ~ Jesus Christ is called the “Foundation of the Church”.
In 1 Corinthians 3:12 ~ the faithful build upon the foundation.
In Matthew 16:18 ~ Jesus builds upon the foundation.
In 1 Peter 2:5 ~ the faithful are called the stones of God’s spiritual house.
In Acts 4:11 ~ Jesus is called the Stone of God’s house.
In 1 Corinthians 3:16 ~ The faithful are the Temple of God.
In Revelation 21:22 ~ Jesus is the Temple of God.
In Acts 20:28 ~ the Apostles are called the bishops of the flock.
In 1 Peter 2:25 ~ Jesus is called the Bishop of the flock.
Just because God and Jesus are called “ROCK”, that does not preclude that title from belonging to anyone else, does it? Is Jesus BOTH the Builder and the Rock? Heavenly/divine attributes are often shared in the NT, aren’t they?
Matthew 16:19 ~ Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven (the House of God) to Peter.
Revelation 3:7 ~ Jesus has the Key of David (the House of God).
Matthew 16:19 ~ Peter has the authority to bind and loose (open and shut).
Revelation 3:7 ~ Jesus has the Authority to open and shut (bind and loose).
In Luke 22:30 ~ The Apostles sit upon heavenly thrones.
In Revelation 7:10, 11, 15, 17 God sits upon His heavenly throne.
None of this in any way takes away from God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.