By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[2ndpillar]

Definitely not "subjective" logic as my main education is in science.

I guess that puts you in the wheelhouse with Mr. Science, Dr. Fauci himself.

 

[Dimi95]

Peter was a shepherd chosen by the LORD (Zechariah 11), which was done through the use of his right arm, the son of man. The LORD also chose Paul to be a shepherd of the "flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter (Zech 11:7).

False
There is only one shepherd
John 10:11
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Peter was always a chosen shepherd, it is just that he was a "worthless shepherd" according to Zechariah 11:17. According to Galatians, Paul talked with whom he noted as the "presumed pillars", Cephas, John, and James. Of course Paul also said that Peter (small rock) was to preach to the "circumcised", which is in contradiction to Acts 15:7.

Oh my God

Galatians 2
'Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,just as Peter had been to the circumcised.For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

 

[metis]

Peter was a shepherd chosen by the LORD (Zechariah 11), which was done through the use of his right arm, the son of man. The LORD also chose Paul to be a shepherd of the "flock (Christian church) doomed for slaughter (Zech 11:7). Peter was always a chosen shepherd, it is just that he was a "worthless shepherd" according to Zechariah 11:17. According to Galatians, Paul talked with whom he noted as the "presumed pillars", Cephas, John, and James. Of course Paul also said that Peter (small rock) was to preach to the "circumcised", which is in contradiction to Acts 15:7.

Is your church teaching you such nonsense?

BTW, in Aramaic, the same word is used for both "rock" and "stone", and it's really quite illogical for one to not understand that Jesus was using a play on word's since "petra" relates to Petros [Greek], and Jesus made that clear in his introductory statement ["Thou are petra..."]. Why would he even use those words if he supposedly was not referring to Peter?

Anyhow, you love to deviate from what's being discussed, so maybe answer the question I've asked twice.

 

[metis]

I guess that puts you in the wheelhouse with Mr. Science, Dr. Fauci himself.

I'm remembering why I put you on "ignore" for so long as sarcasm and judgementalism seemingly are your m.o.

Anyhow, are you going to answer the question I've asked several times that you avoided or not? So far all I've seen from you is song & dance.

 

[2ndpillar]

Is your church teaching you such nonsense?

BTW, in Aramaic, the same word is used for both "rock" and "stone", and it's really quite illogical for one to not understand that Jesus was using a play on word's since "petra" relates to Petros [Greek], and Jesus made that clear in his introductory statement ["Thou are petra..."]. Why would he even use those words if he supposedly was not referring to Peter?

Anyhow, you love to deviate from what's being discussed, so maybe answer the question I've asked twice.

I was raised in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Can't you tell? My NASB was translated from Greek, and accordingly, the church was to be built on the Petros (foundational stone), but Peter was called Petra, more in line with being a small stone or pebble. From the message of Matthew 7:28, it is more likely that the Roman church is founded on Peter (petra) and would be in the range of having a foundation of sand. Keep in mind that Yeshua came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Mt 5), and the election of Peter was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 11:17, whereas Peter is the "worthless shepherd", who would not feed, care or tend for the sheep (Zechariah 11:16).

 

[2ndpillar]

False
There is only one shepherd
John 10:11
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

Your quote is that there is a "good shepherd", whereas Zechariah 11 refers to a "worthless shepherd". They are related, but not the same. The "one shepherd" from Ezekiel 34:23 is with respect to a time when the "fat" shepherds are judged with destruction (Ez 34:16). The "fat" "shepherds" are those who did not feed, care, or heal the sheep (Ezekiel 34:1-5), which would parallel the pope, the proclaimed heir of Peter, with his shepherds' staff (equipment of a foolish shepherd (Zech 11:15)), who as declared in Isaiah 22:25, will "fall" and his followers will be "cut off".

 

[metis]

but Peter was called Petra, more in line with being a small stone or pebble. From the message of Matthew 7:28,

It has already been explained to you as your scenario makes no sense, as Peter certainly must have known his own name ["Thou are Peter [Petros], ...", whereas under your scenario, Peter doesn't know his own name.

 

[metis]

Keep in mind that Yeshua came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Mt 5), and the election of Peter was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 11:17, whereas Peter is the "worthless shepherd", who would not feed, care or tend for the sheep (Zechariah 11:16).

Certainly wasn't "worthless" in Jesus' opinion, so I'm going with him.

 

[2ndpillar]

Certainly wasn't "worthless" in Jesus' opinion, so I'm going with him.

Yeshua chose Peter because Peter was full of himself and fit well into fulfilling Zechariah 11:16-17. He chose Judas Iscariot because Judas loved money, and therefore fit well into fulfilling Zechariah 11:12-13, whereas he would be willing to sell his soul for 30 pieces of silver.

Zechariah 11:
12 I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.

14 Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the family bond between Judah and Israel.

15 Then the Lord said to me, “Take again the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For I am going to raise up a shepherd over the land who will not care for the lost, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or feed the healthy, but will eat the meat of the choice sheep, tearing off their hooves.

17 “Woe to the worthless shepherd,
who deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm and his right eye!
May his arm be completely withered,
his right eye totally blinded!”

 

[Dimi95]

Yeshua chose Peter because Peter was full of himself and fit well into fulfilling Zechariah 11:16-17. He chose Judas Iscariot because Judas loved money, and therefore fit well into fulfilling Zechariah 11:12-13, whereas he would be willing to sell his soul for 30 pieces of silver.

Are you seeing the non-sense that you are writing?
You are saying that he chosed them because they fulfilled scripture
It seems that interpretation of Scripture is the most important thing to you

Zechariah 11:
And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me

This alone tells everything.
You don't need to quote anything else.

About Paul, Can you imagine a a Pharisee of Pharisees who 'intensely persecuted' the followers of Jesus to convert and start a ministry in the name od Jesus Christ?
Knowing enough of Judaism , it is impossible for me to think of that.

Your tactics are starting to be annoying..
These 'dogmas' are not in any way compatible with anything in the NT.
Absurd interpretation,nothing else.

 

[Dimi95]

It has already been explained to you as your scenario makes no sense, as Peter certainly must have known his own name ["Thou are Peter [Petros], ...", whereas under your scenario, Peter doesn't know his own name.

He is confused with root of words

-masculine form of Greek petra, the word for "rock" or "stone"

By his answers i might say that he is also confused about many other things.

 

[Dimi95]

According to Galatians, Paul talked with whom he noted as the "presumed pillars", Cephas, John, and James. Of course Paul also said that Peter(small rock) was to preach to the "circumcised", which is in contradiction to Acts 15:7.

This is how your tactics are exposed.

 

[2ndpillar]

It has already been explained to you as your scenario makes no sense, as Peter certainly must have known his own name ["Thou are Peter [Petros], ...", whereas under your scenario, Peter doesn't know his own name.

Peter's original name was Simon bar Jonas, not Petros.

Matthew 16:17 ​

Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

 

[2ndpillar]

This is how your tactics are exposed.

I don't see any point which you might be trying to make.

Galatian 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

 

[2ndpillar]

He is confused with root of words

-masculine form of Greek petra, the word for "rock" or "stone"

By his answers i might say that he is also confused about many other things.

The Greek petra, is with respect to a foundational stone of the church, such as the Spirit of Revelation (Mt 16:16), being the foundational stone the true church was built on. Petros/Peter is to eventually "fall" during the time of his heir, the pope (Isaiah 22:25). The Greek petros, is with respect to a small stone/pebble, which was with respect to Simon bar Jonas, who was not the foundational stone, but a loser as noted in Isaiah 22:15-16. Peter/petros was put in charge of the "royal household"/church, which was built on the Spirit of Revelation, petra, which is the "testimony of Yeshua" (Rev 19:10). Your narrative is the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil", which is to reign until the "end of the age" (Mt 13;30), when the tares will be gathered and thrown into the fire.

Isaiah 22:15 This is what the Lord [a]God of armies says:

“Come, go to this steward,
To Shebna who is in charge of the royal household,
16 ‘What right do you have here,
And whom do you have here,
That you have cut out a tomb for yourself here,
You who cut out a tomb on the height,
You who carve a resting place for [b]yourself in the rock?

Revelation 19:10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “[a]Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brothers and sisters who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

 

[2ndpillar]

Are you seeing the non-sense that you are writing?
You are saying that he chosed them because they fulfilled scripture
It seems that interpretation of Scripture is the most important thing to you

You seem to have missed the purpose of the coming of the "son of man".

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

 

[Dimi95]

Peter's original name was Simon bar Jonas, not Petros.

Matthew 16:17 ​

Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 16:18
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Petros = Peter

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Don't confuse yourself with roots in context.

Again , you are disproven.

Let's see the next thing on the agenda..

 

[Dimi95]

I don't see any point which you might be trying to make.

There is no point to make there , the verse alone is enough to speak.

Galatian 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

Of course you don't understand.

How can you understand since the only tool that you use is Scripture and you use it to fit in your understanding.

Cephas is a masculine name of Aramaic origin, meaning "rock." It is derived from the Aramaic word kephas, which means "rock" or "stone."

John 1:42
"And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter)."

Cephas = Peter

Again , disproven

 

[metis]

Zechariah 11:

That book deals with the return from the Babylonian Exile roughly 500 years before Jesus' time, and it cannot refer to Jesus and his time because the Temple was destroyed after him, not restored, and YHWH's enemies were not defeated as the Romans destroyed much of eretz Israel and sent much of the Way into the diaspora. On top of that, there's no hint whatsoever that there's any reference to Peter.

 

[metis]

Peter's original name was Simon bar Jonas, not Petros.

Matthew 16:17​

Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Of course it was! And when Jesus changed his name, he undoubtedly did it for a reason as many Jewish names in Hebrew have meaning to them. And Jesus says this is what he's doing when he starts out "Thou art Petros,..." [Greek translation].

IOW, he's using a play on words.