- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 5 years 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.
