Got me. Remember, these were the same guys that got the answer wrong to Jesus' question, Who am I?
Now you know why Jesus chose Peter.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians, Is Peter the rock?
- Thread starter ForeverFaithful
- Start date
Got me. Remember, these were the same guys that got the answer wrong to Jesus' question, Who am I?
Now you know why Jesus chose Peter.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
He chose 12, not just one. If you take the time to read the links I've posted in previous posts in this thread, I and others will debunk the supremacy of Peter.
He did choose 12 talmidim. The remaining eleven and their successors have the powers to bind, loose and teach as any bishop does. Only 1 has the keys, Peter.
And BTW, if you believe in your statement of the chosen 12, why aren't you a follower of the doctrine of their respective apostolic sees? There's the apostolic see of St. Andrew (Orthodox), St Mark (Coptic), St Thomas (Catholic in India)??? And of course, the pope in Rome.
gnosisofthomas
Gnostic Deacon
This doesn't really take a scholar... Here's an interlinear Bible online (the link is to Matthew 16) : http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat16.pdf
You can see pretty easily that "Petros" and "petra" are used. Jesus tended to give nicknames to the apostles a lot, and this seems to be a slight play on words, probably indicating that Peter understood Him better than the other apostles did.
It's interesting though, because if you read other Christian writings from around the same time, you can see that different groups of Christians were responding to each other's claims to power. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas (verse 12), Jesus says that when He is gone, His followers should go to James the Just, "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being". This same gospel also recounts basically the same story as Matthew 16 does, where Jesus asks His apostles to describe Him. In the GoT (verse 13), it's Thomas who gets the answer right, rather than Peter, and then Jesus tells him He is no longer his master and reveals three things to him in private.
Jesus told the Pharisees who were versed in the law at Luke [11 vs52,53]
that the key 'of knowledge' would be taken away from them.
The 'knowledge of religious truth' they would no longer have the key to unlock it.
According to Matthew [23v13] those false religious leaders shut up [locked up] from people the knowledge of God's kingdom......
At Matthew [16v18] the gates of hell [locked gates] would not prevail against 'it'. Jesus, not Peter, according to Rev. [1v18], that Jesus is the one who has the keys to unlock hell. Unlock the gates of hell.
The 'keys' given to Peter in verses 19 and 18v18 would unlock knowledge, 'divinely provided knowledge' in order to help people to become part of God's kingdom. - Peter was Not dictating to heaven, rather Peter was used in loosing or unlocking certain determined new things, or new knowledge.
Newly unlocked knowledge that Jews could become baptized Christians
-Acts 2 vs1-41
Newly unlocked knowledge that Samaritans could convert.
-Acts 8 vs14-17
Newly unlocked knowledge that people of the nations [Gentiles] could convert
-Acts chapter 10; 15 vs7-9
Now, both converted Jew and non-Jew could be part of the Christian congregation.
At Acts [15 vs 22,23,25] it is Not Peter, but as it pleased the apostles [plural] and elders [plural] to send chosen men.....
Last edited:
Yep, teaching with authority (keys) would be taken from the Pharisees and Jesus would transfer it from Himself to His replacement/student/talmidim/apostle, Peter.
The reason that Peter was chosen as an apostle was the same reason that Judas Iscariot was chosen. It was to fulfill Scripture.
Judas Iscariot:
Zechariah 11:12, And I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages."
(Judas Iscariot was the 3rd shepherd of Zechariah)
Peter:
Zecharial 11:8, Then I annihilated the three shepherds in one month, for my soul was impatient with them, and their soul also was weary of me"
(Peter was the 2nd shepherd who pastured the flock "doomed to slaughter" (Zech 11:7) (one month is equal to a single generation) (all three shepherds were annihilated in one generation) (the third shepherd "Favor", was Paul)
To fulfill the role of the Peter, Yeshua chose a good looking tall guy who thought highly of himself (arrogant). Whereas the role of Judas, required someone who loved money (greed).
As for the "keys of the kingdom", that was to fulfill a damning prophecy with respect to Peter's heir, the Pope. The damning prophecy is in Isaiah 22:22. Yeshua came to fulfill prophecy. Yeshua spoke in parables, and such, so that only those with ears to hear can understand. With regards to Isaiah 22:22, anyone hanging on the peg of the key holder will be cut off "in that day".
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Nope!
In short, I'm coming from the canon. I've picked up a copy of "The Lost Scriptures" by Bart D. Ehrman and am still reading it. As far as the pope, well, let's just say I've never trusted any of them.
Nope!
In short, I'm coming from the canon. I've picked up a copy of "The Lost Scriptures" by Bart D. Ehrman and am still reading it. As far as the pope, well, let's just say I've never trusted any of them.
So you are your own teacher with authority...that's not the way the Jewish teaching method used by Jesus works....
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
FYI, I am not Jewish and Jesus taught principles that were different from the Jewish pov, an eye for an eye, think.
Let me put it another way...you don't get to read a' book' and then become a teacher with authority....
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
I never said I had any authority, straw man. I'm just explaining that Peter had no more authority than any other apostle.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I know the difference.
It's quite simple. Jesus spoke Aramaic (no scholar argues this), He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given what we know of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow for it.
Dr. Hahn says the following in response to:Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock,"
....but - I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.
You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
So you see, the writers of scripture were quite the grammar natzi's and that's why I said earlier that I can relate to this immensely because of being able to speak and write Spanish fluently. It's easier to appreciate such things.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
They also spoke Hebrew.
Hebrew language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jewish diaspora
Rashi script
While there is no doubt that at a certain point, Hebrew was displaced as the everyday spoken language of most Jews, and that its chief successor in the Middle East was the closely related Aramaic language, then Greek[12][note 1], scholarly opinions on the exact dating of that shift have changed very much.[15] In the early half of the 20th century, most scholars followed Geiger and Dalman in thinking that Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel as early as by the start of Israel's Hellenistic Period in the 4th century BCE, and that as a corollary Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time. Segal, Klausner, and Ben Yehuda are notable exceptions to this view. During the latter half of the 20th century, accumulating archaeological evidence and especially linguistic analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls has disproven that view. The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in 1946-1948 near Qumran revealed ancient Jewish texts overwhelmingly in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Qumran scrolls indicate that Hebrew texts were readily understandable to the average Israelite, and that the language had evolved since Biblical times as spoken languages do.[note 2]. Recent scholarship recognizes that reports of Jews speaking in Aramaic indicates a multi-lingual society, not necessarily the primary language spoken. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew co-existed within Israel as a spoken language.[17] Most scholars now date the demise of Hebrew as a spoken language to the end of the Roman Period, or about 200 CE.[18] It continued on as a literary language down through Byzantine Period from the 4th century CE. Many Hebrew linguists even postulate the survival of Hebrew as a spoken language until the Byzantine Period[who?], but some historians do not accept this.[who?]
The exact roles of Aramaic and Hebrew remain hotly debated. A trilingual scenario has been proposed for the land of Israel. Hebrew functioned as the local mother tongue with powerful ties to Israel's history, origins, and golden age and as the language of Israel's religion; Aramaic functioned as the international language with the rest of the Mideast; and eventually Greek functioned as another international language with the eastern areas of the Roman Empire.[citation needed] Communities of Jews (and non-Jews) are known, who immigrated to Judea from these other lands and continued to speak Aramaic or Greek. According to another summary, Greek was the language of government, Hebrew the language of prayer, study and religious texts, and Aramaic was the language of legal contracts and trade.[19] There was also geographic pattern: by the beginning of the Common Era, "Judeo-Aramaic was mainly used in Galilee in the north, Greek was concentrated in the former colonies and around governmental centers, and Hebrew monolingualism continued mainly in the southern villages and no man's land of Judea."[12] In other words, "in terms of dialect geography, at the time of the tannaim Palestine could be divided into the Aramaic-speaking regions of Galilee and Samaria and a smaller area, Judaea, in which Rabbinic Hebrew was used among the descendants of returning exiles."[13][14] In addition, it has been surmised that Koine Greek was the primary vehicle of communication in coastal cities and among the upper class of Jerusalem, and Aramaic was prevalent in the lower class of Jerusalem, but not in the surrounding countryside.[19] After the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Judaeans were forced to disperse and many relocated to Galilee, so most remaining native speakers of Hebrew at that last stage would have been found in the north.[20]
The Christian New Testament contains some clearly Aramaic place names and quotes.[21] Although the language of such Semitic glosses (and in general the language spoken by Jews in scenes from the New Testament) is usually referred to as "Hebrew"/"Jewish" in the text,[22] this term often seems to refer to Aramaic instead[note 3][note 4] and is rendered accordingly in recent translations.[24] Nonetheless, many glosses can be interpreted as Hebrew as well; and it has been argued that Hebrew, rather than Aramaic, lay behind the composition of the Gospel of Matthew.[25] (See the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic of Jesus for more details on Hebrew and Aramaic in the gospels.)
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
The church is the bride (feminine) of Christ (bridegroom), who is the authority, not Peter.
Matthew 28:18 NIV
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
1 Corinthians 1:10-17 NIV
1 Corinthians 3:18-23 NIV
Yeshua spoke vaguely for a purpose. He came to fulfill Scripture (Mt 5:17), and the Scripture related to being fulfilled is Isaiah 22, whereas the holder of the keys will be set as a peg in a wall, but, "in that day", the peg will give way, and those hanging from the peg will be cut off. The peg "in that day", will be the Pope, supposed heir of Peter, and those hanging on the peg will be cut off. Peter will be as Shebna, who made a resting place in the "rock", but was cast into a vast country (Rome), where he "will die".
Jesus receives the royal key to open and shut at Isaiah [22v22]
The two symbolic pegs are not actual persons.
The symbolic language of Isaiah [22vs23-25] describes the transfer of power from Shebna to Eliakim with the first peg being Eliakim.
Unlike Shebna he does not disgrace his father's house [reputation].
Eliakim is a lasting support peg to others.
The second peg Shebna, although seemingly a secure peg, will be removed.
Anyone looking to the support of the Shebna peg will fall.
Christendom [so-called Christianity] as a support has long promoted herself as an appointed steward, or peg, as the earthly representative of Christ Jesus.
Like the 'Shebna peg' Christendom brings dishonor by seeking her own glory by amassing not only riches for herself but power mixing with the political.
[Rev 18v7]
Jesus foretold a modern composite earthly 'Eliakim peg' steward at Luke
[12vs42,43]. They would be, not a discredited 'peg', but a trustworthy 'peg'
or a reliable support peg for the ingathering of the 'sheep' of Matthew 25v32.
-Matthew 24v45; 25vs21, 23-29, 40.
You are mistaken, for the faithful steward would be sustaining the sheep. Although the mother church is very, very, very rich, the poor are still hungry, and the naked are still cold. Did you see the TV special on the little children in Afghanistan freezing to death?
Peter's heir, who would parallel Eliakim, is the one to break off, and Shebna, a parallel to Peter, is the one to find a resting place in the "rock". As Zechariah foretold in Ze 11:16, the 3rd Shepherd, who was to die in the generation of Judas (Ze 11:12), was not going to care, seek, or heal the broken of the sheep. This refers to Peter who was told to shepherd, tend the sheep , and tend the lambs, and then said he loved Yeshua 3 times, the same number of times he denied knowing Yeshua. (John 21:16-17) Do you see a pattern here? Just as in Ze the shepherd is raised up who does not care for the perishing, in John 21:18, Peter will be raised up to where he doesn't want to go with hands stretched out. Sounds a lot like how Peter was crucified. Just as Judas fulfilled his destiny, so did Peter.