- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
To Modem Mouth
Let's imagine that yours and the Catholic interpretation of this verse is “You are Peter (rock) and on this rock I will build my Church”, then you have to ask yourself why Jesus said that at that moment. Do you think that it may have been related to what Christ said just before Jesus spoke those words, i.e, You are the Christ, the son of the living God”. If you think that Peter's declaration had nothing to do with the Church that Christ was going to build, then all I can say is that this is very convenient for your belief that Jesus is YHWH. But if Peter's declaration made Jesus respond in the way he did, then should you not also believe that Jesus is of God too? That he is God's son.
I offer you the following scriptures that show the foundation of true faith in God.
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.So it is not Peter as you can see. The foundation is of the apostles (their works), but it also includes the Lord Jesus himself.
Matthew 3:17 (English-NIV)
“And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased”So even the Father spoke these words himself. Why change the truth of God for a lie? Why would you want to do that? The Father did not say this is God, like you do, did he?
John 11:27
“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, [ Or Messiah] the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”John 20:31
But these are written that you may [ Some manuscripts may continue to] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.Acts 8:36
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?” [ Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]The point is that Jesus being the Christ and the son of God is what our faith is about. You take that away and you have another foundation and another gospel. If this is the case then let those who preach a false gospel be eternally condemned. For preaching false gospels is destructive to not only yourself but anyone that believes your gospel.
This is not a joke or a casual debate. This is about the integrity of the gospel and what the Church is about. Oppose that and you oppose God. God sent his son into the world to establish that truth. Why render his sacrifice as nothing by accepting another gospel. Why insult God by saying that he is a liar, when it is he himself who tells us that Jesus/Yeshua is his son.
Yeshua is the son of God and you can change that for Yeshua is YHWH. But that is your problem is it not?
t8,
From Strongs:Peter:
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: – Peter, rock.Hardly a catholic source.
I thought it was a little rich that you were badgering liljohn to provide a verse when the one which you provided as the foundation of your faith, was misinterpreted.
Jesus said:
Quote 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Why would Christ say “you are Peter and on this rock….” if He meant “on this declaration…..”?? Come on t8, get real.
For the record I don't deny Jesus is the Son of God. But I believe that what God begets is God (go figure) not something different to God. CS Lewis shares this view. I found this on pg 9 of the 'Who is Jesus?' thread:
Quote “”C.S. Lewis writes in Mere Christianity, “To beget is to become the father of something; to create is to make something. When you beget something you beget something that is the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, and beaver begets beavers, and a bird begets eggs that become baby birds. But when you make, you make of a kind different from yourself. Birds make nests, beavers make dams, a man makes a wireless set…What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man creates is not man.” Yes God begats in his own image. Even we are called gods because we are the offspring of God. But hey are you God. No of course not. Also to have divine nature means that your nature comes from the Divine, it doesn't make you the Divine himself. Yeshua has divine nature and so will those who belong to God.
Similarly God is Spirit, but we also have a spirit that comes from The Spirit. Just because I have a spirit doesn't make me the Spirit does it?
Yeshua is the Son of God, not God himself. I think it is you who needs to get real. Getting real is about admitting the simple truth that God has a son and that Jesus came from God. This belief is essential. But your belief denies this and says that Yeshua is God, not of God.
Talking about the Peter being the Rock, it is the Catholics and some Potestants who teach this, but Catholics use it to promote the Pope as the leader as they believe Peter was. But many other Christians including myself do not agree with this view for the following reasons (excluding allegiance to the Pope):
Taken from http://www.christiancourier.com
Note: This doesn't mean that I endorse all their teaching.- Petros and petra reflect different genders – the former is masculine, the latter is feminine; thus a distinction is drawn.
- Petros generally is a smaller stone, a fragment; petra is a more massive, bedrock-like substructure.
- Christ distinguished between petros and petra by the use of pronouns of different person. Petros has a second person pronoun as a companion, while petra is used with a third person pronoun.
- In the symbolism employed by Jesus, Peter is designated as the one who opens the doors to the kingdom (which he did for Jew and Gentile – Acts 2; 10). It is not customary for an object to occupy two roles, e.g., the foundation and door-opener, at the same time in the same metaphorical illustration.
Rebuttal of the above is usually as follows:
- Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, there is no valid point here – because in Aramaic there would be no gender distinction; (kepha) would be employed in both instances.
Rebuttal of the rebuttal:
- In addition, it is one thing to suggest that Peter was the rock; it is quite another to argue that papal authority necessarily results from that alleged identification.
- It is an assumption that Jesus spoke Aramaic on this occasion. Certainly that is the most likely possibility, but the truth is, most Palestineans of the first century were tri-lingual, speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So we cannot be positive what dialect Jesus spoke on this occasion.
- Be that as it may, when the Lord changed Simon’s name to Peter, he employed a Hellenized form of the term that is masculine in gender, kephas (see Jn. 1:42). T.H. Robinson conceded that while there is only one word in Aramaic (and it is feminine), when a man’s name is used, it can take a masculine form.
- Additionally, the fact is, Matthew’s Gospel record was written in Greek; and the Greek clearly reflects a distinction between the masculine petros, and the feminine petra.
- This point is alleged to be negated, however, by the supposition that Matthew originally penned his Gospel account in Aramaic, and so the Greek edition is merely a later translation. This view is based mostly upon a quotation from Papias (c. A.D. 135), as preserved by Eusebius (3.39). But Papias’ statement is quite ambiguous, and as Carson notes, few scholars today accept this view. He contends that “much evidence suggests that [Matthew] was first composed in Greek” (pp. 11-12). Hiebert has observed that there are certain “linguistic features” of Matthew’s record which “indicate that it was originally written in Greek”
- While there is obviously a word-play between “Peter” and “rock,” Mounce noted, with considerable force, that had Jesus intended to affirm clearly that Peter was to be the “foundation” of the church, he simply could have said: “And upon you I will build my church
- If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantagepoint of Peter (see Eusebius, 2.15), totally omits the exchange
I think that the points I quoted are well thought out and worth consideration. Jesus built his Church on Peter's declaration of who Jesus was. Jesus also built his Church on the works of his Apostles and he built the Church on himself. The Church itself is not of this world and is built on truth and Truth. The truth (attribute) and Jesus (person).
But you can deny the foundation of true faith that is your choice. If you want to follow the teachings of men and man's tradition then go ahead. But you are not only responsible for yourself, but all those that trip over the stumbling block you are trying to lay.
If you read and interpret scripture with scripture you will see time and time again the importance of believing that Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God. But nowhere do you see that Peter is the foundation. The Eunich for example accepted that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of God and he was ready to be baptized. He didn't say I believe that Peter is the foundation.
Your belief in Peter being the foundation of our faith shows clearly that your trust lies in man.
Again it appears that you teach that Jesus is God as opposed to Jesus being of God. Scripture shows your error clearly. Your teaching comes from man, not God. I say this with confidence. Your belief denies scripture.
John 16:30
Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”John 16:27
No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.Hi t8 and MM,
I thought I would throw in my pennyworth.
Peter was good soil. This instinctive, rash and natural leader was the shining light among the disciples. Always first to respond to the master even walking on water. First to commit and sometimes caught short he soaked up all the Lord had to offer and was the first to show evidence that the planting of the Word bore fruit[Mk 4.26f]. He was the first too to become a spiritual man and Yeshua rejoiced to hear the voice of the Spirit in him. He knew he was weak and that made him strong.
Yeshua had found the first stone to place alongside his foundation stone in the building of the church.
Eph 2.19f ” So then you are no longer strangers and aliens , but you are also fellow citizens with the saints and are of God's household, having been built ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone..”
Having stated the transformation of Peter was established Yeshua said similar things to the other apostles 2 chapters later in Matt 18.18. And they too make up the foundation of the new Jerusalem.
” Rev 21.14.” And the wall of the city had 12 foundation stones and on them were the names of the 12 APOSTLES of the Lamb.”
So was Peter given a special role as the first of the apostles? I personally believe he was appointed as a pastor as it is one of the roles in the church. That does not make him more special however. He was asked to 'feed my sheep' and told to encourage his brothers after he denied Christ and repented. He did take the leader's role in speaking to the crowds at Pentecost and he was seen as one of the leaders by Paul when he visited with the Apostles.
He contributed to the decisions made in Acts 15 about the gentiles although James often seemed more prominent.
But the leadership of the followers of Christ was spelled out to be servanthood, not domination or demagogery.
And the church was not meant to be a humanistic democratic organisation. No one takes the place of Yeshua as head of the body of Christ. No one has the right of appointing successors or electing them. Drawing lots allows God to do this work as happened when Judas was replaced.
The Jews claimed Abraham as their Father spiritually but that carried no weight with Yeshua. Neither would anyone claiming to follow Peter have any more validity. We follow Yeshua. Peter would be disgusted with what those who claim his patronage have done. They have murdered the sons of God throughout history just as their true father did.Quote (t8 @ Jan. 31 2005,08:01) Jesus built his Church on Peter's declaration of who Jesus was.
t8,
Show me the verses which specifically show Jesus built his Church on Peter's declaration.All im guilty of t8 is giving a a common sense interpretation of this verse. We could throw scholars interpretation at eachother until the cows come home but, from my experience, this is almost always futile. A far better guage of assessing the validity of an interpretation of a Jesus spoken verse is found by asking yourself what a child would make of it. Any child with a cursory knowledge of the Bible who read this sentence:
Quote 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
would tell you Jesus was referring to Peter, the man, because:
1. the first 8 words of the sentence give the context, and
2. Jesus did build his church on the apostles, and in particular Peter!
It's simple stuff t8.Hi liljon,
Yeshua is now at the right hand of the Father.[Acts 2.25,Acts 7.55-56, Acts 5.31, Rom 8.34, Eph 1.20-21,Coll 3.1,Heb 8.1].He is not the Father.
He is in the Father and the Father is in him[Jn 14.10-11].
He wants us also in him to have the same rights and privileges.[Jn 14.20-23]
Are you not in Yeshua yet? It is not yet too late. He is at the right hand of the Father and we should be in him there in spirit too just as he is here in spirit with us[Jn 14.23].
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 31 2005,08:58) Yeshua had found the first stone to place alongside his foundation stone in the building of the church.
Eph 2.19f ” So then you are no longer strangers and aliens , but you are also fellow citizens with the saints and are of God's household, having been built ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the corner stone..”
Quite right Nick, I agree with youHi MM,
When you think about the building of which Yeshua is the cornerstone and the capstone could any other foundation stones be different from one another? No. That would cause instability of the building. The other stones are not built on top of him but alongside him. So all the apostles have the same equally important role underpinning the structure. Peter was the first formed but not first in any other way.Hi liljon.
It is actually a bit more that that. Certainly the Word says no one can approach God without first believing He exists and He rewards those who seek Him.
James says 'even the demons believe, and tremble' but it does not save them.Yeshua is in the Father and we can be too if we are born into Yeshua. You MUST be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he says to enter the kingdom.
Jn 14.11″ Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me'
Jn14 23″…and my Father will love him and WE will come to him and make OUR abode with him”
Jn 14.20″ In that day you will know that I am in my Father and my Father is in me”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 01 2005,18:40) Hi MM,
When you think about the building of which Yeshua is the cornerstone and the capstone could any other foundation stones be different from one another? No. That would cause instability of the building. The other stones are not built on top of him but alongside him. So all the apostles have the same equally important role underpinning the structure. Peter was the first formed but not first in any other way.
AgreedHi ,
The so called primacy of Peter and the establishment of a church in his name has spawned many further deceptions.'Global' got pretty good press from some in this forum and it is worth reading his approach in pages 18 on in the trinity forum. He espouses the official catholic view that the 'church' has all the authority. Authority to teach and interpret scripture for us ignorant laymen and decide all matters of faith.
Thus because trinity is an official doctrine of the church he infers that refusal to believe in it is rebellion against the established church of God.
This approach has quite an attraction for many as in tells us that to obey the church is to obey God. It also frees us from any personal responsibilty to study the Word or to try to follow Yeshua.
It is nonsense. Do you remember the child's book about the Emperors' new clothes? It took a child to say the Emperor had no clothes on.
All the posturing and supercilious contempt for others does not cover the fact that the traditional church has no relationship at all to the head of the body of Christ.
Hi,
The most common attack on scripture in this forum is the status of the Son of God. I never imagined I would have to constantly defend the glory of the Saviour from attacks by professing believers. He is libelled as just an angel, or as just a man.The Word says that the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine but will accumulate for themselves teachers according to their own desires and will eventually deny the Saviour himself. For the sake of simple followers I reiterate:
Yeshua or Jesus Christ, the Son of God was “FOREKNOWN BEFORE the foundation of the world”[1Peter 1. 20]
He is the Son who was SENT as a last resort to the vineyard leasees but suffered death at their hands.
“He is the FIRST and the last” [Rev 1.17,2.8, 22.13.]
He is not the first man who is Adam [1 Tim 2.13] but the
“MAN FROM HEAVEN” [1 Cor 15.47]He is the “image of the invisible God and FIRSTBORN of all creation” [Coll1 .15]
He is the “Mystery which has been hidden from past ages and generations”[Coll 1.26]
To MM,
Quote (Guest @ Feb. 01 2005,02:04) Why would Christ say “you are Peter and on this rock.
You are little rock (pebble) and upon this bigger rock I will build my church.This is what many believe as the words are different. Some argue however that in Aramaic the 2 versions of the word rock do not exist so the same word would have been used. But others counter with the belief that the gospel was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic and they cite evidence from other verses for this.
Whatever the truth is here, we cannot ignore Peters words after Christ asked him WHO he was. “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”. Either way, this truth prompted Christ to say you are the rock or upon this rock…
This truth cannot be ignored and is fundamental to our faith.
Either Christ called Peter a rock because he heard his declaration or he called the truth itself a rock upon which he would build. Either way the truth that was spoken by Peter made Christ respond the way he did. So we shouldn't ignore that truth. This truth is fundamental.
Also if we look further into scripture we see how important it is to believe that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. I do no see any one verse that says that we must believe that Peter is our foundation in order to have true faith. If you like you could show those verses to me. Even the Eunuch said “I believe that Jesus is the Christ and the son, what is stopping me from being baptized.”
I haven't read anyone say in scripture “I believe that Peter is the foundation” can I be baptized now.”
Quote For the record I don't deny Jesus is the Son of God. But I believe that what God begets is God (go figure) not something different to God. CS Lewis shares this view. I found this on pg 9 of the 'Who is Jesus?' thread: Yes God begats gods, he also creates. God begats others with his nature. God doesn't begat his own identity however. There is only one God.
Same with humans. They begat after their own nature. Humans begat humans, dogs begat dogs and kiwis begat kiwis. But Peter, bob or bill do not begat the same persons Peter, Bob, Bill (a clone or the same soul). No they would begat humans, but with different idenities to themselves.
God begats gods. Offspring, sons, images, with his nature, not identity. Yeshua is begotten of God. He is a different idenity to that of God, but he has God's nature. That is why he is called the son OF GOD. Likewise we to can partake of divine nature. But we are not God are we, gods perhaps, but not God.
There is only one true God the Father. The word father should be descriptive enough but I reinforce what I am saying with the following:
1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.I think if we understood the word 'of' it would certainly quash a lot of misunderstandings.
E.g.
“You are the son OF God.”
Or
“The foundation OF the prophets and Jesus himself.”If I say “Jesus of Bethlehem”, am I talking about Bethlehem itself?
If I say the light of the sun, am I talking about the sun itself?
If I say the the fifth day of the week, am I talking about the week?We know how to use the word 'OF' in everyday language. How is it then that we cannot use it correctly when interpretting scripture?
I think it is because we read scripture with pre-defined beliefs and we tend to ignore that which contradicts our own understanding.
The word 'OF' means 'from'.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2005,15:11) Hi,
The most common attack on scripture in this forum is the status of the Son of God. I never imagined I would have to constantly defend the glory of the Saviour from attacks by professing believers. He is libelled as just an angel, or as just a man.The Word says that the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine but will accumulate for themselves teachers according to their own desires and will eventually deny the Saviour himself. For the sake of simple followers I reiterate:
Yeshua or Jesus Christ, the Son of God was “FOREKNOWN BEFORE the foundation of the world”[1Peter 1. 20]
He is the Son who was SENT as a last resort to the vineyard leasees but suffered death at their hands.
“He is the FIRST and the last” [Rev 1.17,2.8, 22.13.]
He is not the first man who is Adam [1 Tim 2.13] but the
“MAN FROM HEAVEN” [1 Cor 15.47]He is the “image of the invisible God and FIRSTBORN of all creation” [Coll1 .15]
He is the “Mystery which has been hidden from past ages and generations”[Coll 1.26]
Good post Nick.1 John 5:1
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.Yes t8,
The plain fact is that the new covenant has a new interface. No longer can men attempt to please God on their own by good behaviours. No longer is the Law the judge for man.The interface or intermediary is now Jesus Christ. Our relationship with the Father depends entirely on our relationship with the Son.
Jesus said
” No one can come to the Father except through me”
” I am the gate for the sheep”
To those who thought they knew the Father he said
” believe also in me”
So we need to know the Son to relate to the Father.
And the Son needs to know us.
If he does not know us our hopes for salvation are dashed.Where did Jesus live?
We know he was born in Bethlehem.
He was brought up in Nazareth.Matt 4.13
” and leaving Nazareth he came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali. This was to fulfill the word spoken through Isaiah the prophet…”
Mk 2.1f
” And when he had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, even near the door; and he was speaking the word to them. And they came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four men.
And being unable to get to him on account of the crowd, they removed the roof above him”They took his own house apart!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
