Peter the Rock

phattonez · Dec 14, 2013

tosca1 said:
Another evidence that all the Apostles are equal:

How many times did the Apostles squabble among themselves (in the presence of Jesus), as to who's the greatest?

Notice how Jesus did not give an answer to that. If Jesus had appointed Peter to be the head or the leader, He would've announced it on that last occasion (during the Last Supper), just to put the matter to rest.

Remember, He'd already changed Simon's name to Peter, and had given Peter the keys.
If that meant that Peter was The Rock, and if the handing of the keys meant leadership....why were they still arguing as to who among them is the greatest? Wouldn't that be Peter, if he's been appointed as "The Rock" and their leader?
But that's not the case. Clearly, no one among them thought it was Peter. And Jesus did not say that it was Peter!

Luke 22: 27-28 clearly supports my argument that they are all equal!

"You are those...."

He was referring to ALL OF THEM!

Being the leader does not make Peter greater. He's still a man and is not guaranteed of an eternal reward. You seem to be confusing the term leader with the term best.

phattonez · Dec 14, 2013

tosca1 said:
Among the Apostles, there's no doubt that Peter had a high-profile because of his personality. He had a strong personality.
He was a very aggressive and outspoken man - he spoke a lot in the Scriptures! He even rebuked Jesus.

And he's not shy to ask questions.

It must be due to those traits that Peter may have been the UN-OFFICIAL acting-spokesperson for the group.
You know, when you've got someone in the group who's outspoken and aggressive (like Peter)....others tend to let him have the floor. Especially if everyone is shy, or timid or unsure.

The only other Apostle who had a high-profile and the same strong personality would be Paul.
Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, and advanced in Judaism (therefore, he's quite learned). He persecuted the early Christians with great zeal, and tried to violently destroy the newly forming church.
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, Saul was involved in the martyrdom of Stephen.
Part II: Saul of Tarsus and the Martyrdom of St. Stephen – Literature – Resources

There is nothing UNOFFICIAL about Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom. I'm still waiting for you to directly respond to the words of Jesus.

Logicman · Dec 14, 2013

Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch

11 "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.…"

Some "Rock" Peter is!

phattonez · Dec 14, 2013

RGacky3 said:
The Epistle of Galations was before the Council of Jerusalem ... He was reproved by Paul ... but he ALSO followed orders from James.

Don't state something as obvious fact that is not obvious fact:

NT Blog said:
It certainly looks as though these accounts cover the same history, for it would be hard to imagine two such councils, on the same subject, involving the same people, with the same sequence of events, in the same places, and with the same denouements -- right down to a quarrel between Paul and Barnabas ("Once More, Acts and Galatians", JBL 86 (1967): 175-82 [175]).

NT Blog: The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15

The silence After Peter said had nothing to do with Peter .... read the account ...

12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.

They were silent for Paul and Barnabas .... not Peter.

Also not as obvious as you make it out to be. The whole assembly kept silence after the speech of Peter, and notice how there is no longer any debate after the speech of Peter. Everything after his speech affirms what he has just said.

Peter made the opening statement because of his experience, as the first apostle to preach to gentiles.

It's much more than that:

Catholic Answers said:
As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.

Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.

Then there were other testimonies ... there was Debate.

No, there was not. After Peter's speech came only silence and affirmation of what he just said.

THEN James gave the verdict ....

13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers,[c] listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,

16 ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it,
and I will set it up,
17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things 18 known from long ago.’[d]
19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[e] and from blood. 21 For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”

He referenced Peters testimony .... not his decision .... not Peters final opinion .... then he said I HAVE REACHED THE DECISION ... if he actaully meant Peter reached it he would have said that .... if peters decision was final they wouldn't have needed to the debate, but no, Peter was one of many testimonies, and James was the head of the Council.

Peter was one of the pillars .... James, Peter and John .... not the main guy.

About Peters right to make a speach, no one disputed Pauls or Jameses or anyones speaches ... doesn't make them pope.

Again:

Catholic Answers said:
As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232).

And even still, there is the issue that no one has been able to respond to:

1. Jesus calls Peter Kepha, and refers to the kepha on which He will build His Church.
2. Directly after this Jesus talks about giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, so He was talking about Peter in the context.
3. The passage is a parallel for the role of the prime minister of the king in Isaiah. When the king is gone, the prime minister is given the power to make decisions. How could Jesus call Himself the prime minister, since He Himself is the King? That makes no sense. Only someone below the king could be the prime minister, hence Peter.

Instead, those who disagree keep pointing to other verses and try to cast doubt. Tell me, are these other scenes more of an indicator than the actual words of Christ?

phattonez · Dec 14, 2013

Logicman said:
Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch

11 "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.…"

Some "Rock" Peter is!

Was Jesus wrong to call Peter a rock, then? That is after all the claim that you are making.

What did Jesus mean by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom?

And please show me where Jesus gave Peter divinity and made him no longer able to do wrong. I'd love to see that passage. Or would you like to continue attacking a straw man?

Monserrat · Dec 14, 2013

Logicman said:
Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch

11 "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.…"

Some "Rock" Peter is!

You are mocking Jesus there, he was the one who gave Simon Peter that name.

Earlier in the same chapter of Galatians Paul recognizes Peter as having an authoritative position as he establishes his own:

"7 On the contrary, those who were reputed to be the main support of the Church, James and Cephas and John, saw plainly that I was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised, as Peter was to the circumcised; 8 he whose power had enabled Peter to become the apostle of the circumcised, had enabled me to become the apostle of the Gentiles."

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

phattonez said:
Being the leader does not make Peter greater. He's still a man and is not guaranteed of an eternal reward. You seem to be confusing the term leader with the term best.

You're really streeeeeetching. :mrgreen:

So, what was the two-times squabble about "greatness" about? Explain, please.

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

phattonez said:
Was Jesus wrong to call Peter a rock, then? That is after all the claim that you are making.

No, Jesus wasn't wrong. Peter's name may translate to a rock.....but Jesus wasn't referring to Peter as THE Rock.

What transpired was more like this:

Jesus asked Simon . Who do you say am I? Simon answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Since the Redeemer is known as The Rock...Jesus was pleased with Peter's answer.

The following statement, 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, can be understood like this:

As surely as you are Peter, I am The Rock.

"As surely as you are Peter (which means a rock), I say that upon this Rock (which Peter had correctly answered: MESSIAH=ROCK) my Church will be built.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

He promised that not only to Peter but to all the other disciples as well. He was talking to everyone.
And the last statement confirms that the keyword in that whole incident with Peter was the term, MESSIAH - which is also known in the OT as The Rock!

Jesus was referring to Himself as The Rock.

20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

phattonez said:
There is nothing UNOFFICIAL about Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom. I'm still waiting for you to directly respond to the words of Jesus.

You're hanging onto a flimsy ground.

First of all, have you noticed that Simon was already called Peter even before he met Jesus?

John 1:40–42
40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

Matt 4
The First Disciples
18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church,

It's not like as if Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (so that Peter may be referred to as the rock) He was already called Simon Peter before the name-change. All Jesus did was dropped the name Simon. So that supports my explanation above - the coincidence that Peter's name translates to rock - and Jesus being THE ROCK.

The following statement, 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, can be understood like this:

As surely as you are Peter (rock), I am The Rock.

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

phattonez said:
Tosca 1
So why would Peter suddenly become The Rock?

phattonez said:

Because that's what Jesus changed his name to! That's exactly what Peter means!

Click to expand...

No. Jesus didn't really change Peter's name. You make it sound like Jesus purposefully changed his name to Peter that he can then be The Rock. No such thing. That's not accurate.

Jesus didn't just pick the name "Peter" from nowhere and specially bestowed it on Simon Peter.

Peter was always known as Simon Peter. Jesus simply dropped the name Simon.

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

phattonez said:
No, it is not. A message of equality is implied with the use of the word fellow that is not there in the original. And still, look at the modern papacy. The leaders of the Church are bishops. And what is the pope? The BISHOP of Rome.

Why would you use the Papacy as an example to support your case? After all, I am saying that there is no God-designated papacy in the first place, no?

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

phattonez said:
There is nothing UNOFFICIAL about Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom.

Based on my previous explanation that Jesus was addressing all the disciples, it could very well be that He was also talking to all the Apostles when He talked about giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This would make sense, if they were all being given the same power that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven.

Matthew 18
Dealing With Sin in the Church

15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

tosca1 · Dec 14, 2013

I've given several well-supported arguments that negate your claim. One or two of my arguments also busted your claim that's based on one verse from one incident - not only that, the translations and stance of the Catholic Church about this is being strongly disputed by credible sources.

I've got about 10 strong arguments that are well-supported by the Scriptures.
Furthermore, all my arguments are CONSISTENT with one another.

Remember what I've been saying all along about consistency in the Scriptures?

Logicman · Dec 15, 2013

phattonez said:
Was Jesus wrong to call Peter a rock, then? That is after all the claim that you are making.

What did Jesus mean by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom?

And please show me where Jesus gave Peter divinity and made him no longer able to do wrong. I'd love to see that passage. Or would you like to continue attacking a straw man?

He called Peter the small stone. Jesus is the large stone / Rock. The Rock of salvation.

Logicman · Dec 15, 2013

Monserrat said:
You are mocking Jesus there, he was the one who gave Simon Peter that name.

Earlier in the same chapter of Galatians Paul recognizes Peter as having an authoritative position as he establishes his own:

"7 On the contrary, those who were reputed to be the main support of the Church, James and Cephas and John, saw plainly that I was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised, as Peter was to the circumcised; 8 he whose power had enabled Peter to become the apostle of the circumcised, had enabled me to become the apostle of the Gentiles."

Peter, in the end, was an imperfect apostle. Jesus knew that when he called him a small stone. But he doesn't compare to the Great "I AM."

"For who is God, save the Lord? And who is a rock, save our God," (2 Sam. 22:32). See also Psalm 18:31 which quotes this. "The Lord liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation," (2 Sam. 22:47). "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me," (2 Sam. 23:3). "Unto thee will I cry, O Lord my rock," (Ps. 28:1). "For thou art my rock and my fortress," (Ps. 31:3). "I will say unto God my rock," (Ps. 42:9). "He alone is my rock and my salvation," (Psalm 62:2). And many other such passages could be cited.

CHAPTER 2: Is Peter The Rock?

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

Logicman said:
He called Peter the small stone. Jesus is the large stone / Rock. The Rock of salvation.

False. You're falling in for propaganda. I've already disproven the Greek distinction since it was originally written in Aramaic. Furthermore:

Catholic Answers said:
In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros andpetra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

Logicman said:
Peter, in the end, was an imperfect apostle. Jesus knew that when he called him a small stone. But he doesn't compare to the Great "I AM."

"For who is God, save the Lord? And who is a rock, save our God," (2 Sam. 22:32). See also Psalm 18:31 which quotes this. "The Lord liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation," (2 Sam. 22:47). "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me," (2 Sam. 23:3). "Unto thee will I cry, O Lord my rock," (Ps. 28:1). "For thou art my rock and my fortress," (Ps. 31:3). "I will say unto God my rock," (Ps. 42:9). "He alone is my rock and my salvation," (Psalm 62:2). And many other such passages could be cited.

CHAPTER 2: Is Peter The Rock?

Anyone being called a rock is rare, but there was a precedent:

Isaid 51: 1-2 "51 Give ear to me, you that follow that which is just, and you that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence you are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you are dug out. Look unto Abraham your father, and to Sara that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and multiplied him."

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

tosca1 said:
You're really streeeeeetching. :mrgreen:

So, what was the two-times squabble about "greatness" about? Explain, please.

Being the leader does not make you greater in God's eyes. You can still just as easily be deserving of eternal damnation. You're stirring up other attributes with leader to confuse the position because you DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE TRUE. You are not reading what is more likely, you are reading out of Scripture what you want it to say.

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

tosca1 said:
No, Jesus wasn't wrong. Peter's name may translate to a rock.....but Jesus wasn't referring to Peter as THE Rock.

What transpired was more like this:

Jesus asked Simon . Who do you say am I? Simon answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Since the Redeemer is known as The Rock...Jesus was pleased with Peter's answer.

The following statement, 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, can be understood like this:

As surely as you are Peter, I am The Rock.

"As surely as you are Peter (which means a rock), I say that upon this Rock (which Peter had correctly answered: MESSIAH=ROCK) my Church will be built.

Lol, talk about a stretch. "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." You mean to tell me that you actually think it's even plausible that Jesus meant Himself right after calling Peter that? You don't honestly believe that: your bias is clouding your vision.

He promised that not only to Peter but to all the other disciples as well. He was talking to everyone.
And the last statement confirms that the keyword in that whole incident with Peter was the term, MESSIAH - which is also known in the OT as The Rock!

Jesus was referring to Himself as The Rock.

20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Absolutely false, and if you keep engaging in falsehoods I'm done talking about this with you. Jesus had just finished talking with Peter, and you mean to tell me that he out of nowhere and without indicating it started talking to all of the apostles?

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

In other places Jesus talks about the power to bound and loose being given to the other apostles, but not about the keys to the kingdom. I've already talked about the historical significance of that from Isaiah.

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

tosca1 said:
You're hanging onto a flimsy ground.

First of all, have you noticed that Simon was already called Peter even before he met Jesus?

It's not like as if Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (so that Peter may be referred to as the rock) He was already called Simon Peter before the name-change. All Jesus did was dropped the name Simon. So that supports my explanation above - the coincidence that Peter's name translates to rock - and Jesus being THE ROCK.

The following statement, 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, can be understood like this:

As surely as you are Peter (rock), I am The Rock.

Selective reading, eh? Not surprising:

John 1:42 "42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter."

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

tosca1 said:
No. Jesus didn't really change Peter's name. You make it sound like Jesus purposefully changed his name to Peter that he can then be The Rock. No such thing. That's not accurate.

Jesus didn't just pick the name "Peter" from nowhere and specially bestowed it on Simon Peter.

Peter was always known as Simon Peter. Jesus simply dropped the name Simon.

Stop lying.

John 1:42 "42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter."

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

tosca1 said:
Based on my previous explanation that Jesus was addressing all the disciples, it could very well be that He was also talking to all the Apostles when He talked about giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This would make sense, if they were all being given the same power that whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven.

No, this is a lie, and is nowhere indicated in the passage. You want it to be true given your opinions but it's not. Jesus was speaking only to Peter.

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

tosca1 said:
I've given several well-supported arguments that negate your claim. One or two of my arguments also busted your claim that's based on one verse from one incident - not only that, the translations and stance of the Catholic Church about this is being strongly disputed by credible sources.

I've got about 10 strong arguments that are well-supported by the Scriptures.
Furthermore, all my arguments are CONSISTENT with one another.

Remember what I've been saying all along about consistency in the Scriptures?

And if you bring forth another lie that I can easily expose then we're done talking. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who cares not a whit for the truth.

Logicman · Dec 15, 2013

phattonez said:
False. You're falling in for propaganda. I've already disproven the Greek distinction since it was originally written in Aramaic. Furthermore:

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers

Nope, not buying it. Jesus is THE ROCK!

phattonez · Dec 15, 2013

Logicman said:
Nope, not buying it. Jesus is THE ROCK!

Then you are choosing to believe a falsehood in face of evidence to the contrary. It's no problem for me, but just remember the Psalms when you decide to adopt such an attitude:

Psalm 14(15):
A psalm of David. Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? or who shall rest in thy holy hill?
2 He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:
3 He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.
4 In his sight the malignant is brought to nothing: but he glorifieth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his neighbour, and deceiveth not;
5 He that hath not put out his money to usury, nor taken bribes against the innocent: He that doth these things shall not be moved for ever.