Where does the Pope get his authority?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,971
3,410
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter was a small stone - not the "rock" of his confession. Paul was God's NT champion who had to get in Peter's face and correct his weak-kneed religion. Good thing Jesus didn't establish His church on a gelatinous coward who denied Jesus 3 times, but on the sure foundation of Peter's words.
A truly idiotic response.

You condemn Peter for denying Christ 3 times – but you say NOTHNG about Paul persecuting and murdering Christians. Unless you’re completely ignorant – you would know that the Holy Spirit changed BOTH of them into bold advocates for the Gospel.

As for Peter being a “small Rock” – that’s NOT what Jesus said.
Jesus called him, “Kepha” in the Aramaic language that they spoke. Kepha means “Rock” - period.

Study your Bible, son . . .

To his credit, he changed his ways, but not without the guidance and direction of my main man Paul.
MY main man is Jesus . . .
 
  • Love
Reactions: The Learner

Peterlag

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2022
2,849
855
113
68
New York
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A truly idiotic response.

You condemn Peter for denying Christ 3 times – but you say NOTHNG about Paul persecuting and murdering Christians. Unless you’re completely ignorant – you would know that the Holy Spirit changed BOTH of them into bold advocates for the Gospel.

As for Peter being a “small Rock” – that’s NOT what Jesus said.
Jesus called him, “Kepha” in the Aramaic language that they spoke. Kepha means “Rock” - period.

Study your Bible, son . . .


MY main man is Jesus . . .
E. W. Bullinger who is one of the greatest scholars in the world has that rock as a rolling stone in his Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: indicating Peter was unstable.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Phoneman777

Peterlag

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2022
2,849
855
113
68
New York
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter was a small stone - not the "rock" of his confession. Paul was God's NT champion who had to get in Peter's face and correct his weak-kneed religion. Good thing Jesus didn't establish His church on a gelatinous coward who denied Jesus 3 times, but on the sure foundation of Peter's words. To his credit, he changed his ways, but not without the guidance and direction of my main man Paul.
You are right on about Peter being a small or rolling stone meaning unstable. But he was no coward because he was saving his life. This man became an Apostle of Jesus Christ who raised people from the dead and who was a friend of the Lords.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoneman777

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,289
557
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1.) Lie number one. I believe the Scriptures are clear and even a child can understand the simple truth.
One can believe in the Trinity (as I do), yet still concede (as I do) that Scriptural "proofs" are ambiguous enough that no definitive conclusion can be drawn from them.

2.) Lie number two. There's no such thing as a pre-incarnate son.
Then there is the matter of separating the pre-incarnate Son from the incarnate Jesus,

3.) Lie number three. Jesus did not empty himself.
Jesus had “emptied himself” of whatever “equality” he may have had with the Father (Philippians 2:7).

4.) Lie number four. There was no outgrowth of the trinity for the early church.
I am persuaded that the Trinity is, in fact, the outgrowth of the early Church’s effort to understand and explain its own experience of the risen Christ in philosophical terms. And I think they got it right.
So, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,449
2,609
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A truly idiotic response.

You condemn Peter for denying Christ 3 times – but you say NOTHNG about Paul persecuting and murdering Christians. Unless you’re completely ignorant – you would know that the Holy Spirit changed BOTH of them into bold advocates for the Gospel.
See that, everyone? See how the only leg a papist can hope to stand on is obtained from one of their "heretic" mass graves or a "relic" of some dead guy elevated to "sainthood" on display in their pantheons of perdition?

The SDA's apples-to-apples comparison of post-conversion Paul to post-conversion Peter when pointing out the warranted, necessary, public, face-to-face smack down of Peter by Paul concerning Peter's spiritual immaturity and self-serving bigotry - is met with DB's criticism of the murderous rampage of a pre-conversion Paul in defense of the honor of His God.

God help us if Jesus founded His church upon Peter, the same guy Jesus called "Satan" who denied Him 3 times, sought the approval of bigoted Jews who hated Gentiles, standing on the water and turning his gaze from Jesus to - no doubt - make sure the fellas saw him like some TikTok attention seeker, protesting his foot washing, slicing off a man's ear after having spent 3 1/2 years with the Prince of Peace...
As for Peter being a “small Rock” – that’s NOT what Jesus said.
Jesus called him, “Kepha” in the Aramaic language that they spoke. Kepha means “Rock” - period.

Study your Bible, son . . .
Study something besides a catechism, please. The Aramaic word "Kepha" has a breadth of meaning that can easily accommodate the Greek dichotomy "petros" and "petra" in the same way the English word "rock" can refer to both "pea gravel" rock or the "Rock of Gibraltar" which is why the inspired prophets of Scripture wrote it like that.

"Thou art Pea-gravel, and upon this Rock of Gibraltar I will build my church..."
MY main man is Jesus . .
You know full well when I sad "main man" it was in reference to NT authors due to Paul's comprehensiveness of teaching.

However, if Jesus truly is your "main man", why is the merits of Mary "more efficacious" than those of Jesus, as your pantheon of perdition teaches? I think you mean "main woman".
 
  • Love
Reactions: Cassandra

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,449
2,609
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are right on about Peter being a small or rolling stone meaning unstable. But he was no coward because he was saving his life. This man became an Apostle of Jesus Christ who raised people from the dead and who was a friend of the Lords.
Let's be clear: establishing why the church isn't built on Peter requires criticism of Peter as anything but a sure foundation for it.

Peter was a coward who made up for it with bravado: he denied Jesus in fear for his life after being warned not to deny Him, he feared rejection of legalistic Jews, feared rejection of his own Christian peers. Yes, he went on to spiritually mature, but well after the founding of Christ's church on the sure foundation of what Peter said, not Peter himself.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,971
3,410
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
E. W. Bullinger who is one of the greatest scholars in the world has that rock as a rolling stone in his Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: indicating Peter was unstable.
That's great.
This long list of emninent Protestant scholars disagree with your one scholar . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.

"The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter

"Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

"The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

"'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

"Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,971
3,410
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
continued . . .

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

"There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]; indeed refer to Peter." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

4. The identity of the rock ("petra") is affirmed by the Aramaic that Jesus was speaking.

"The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

"The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

"But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, 'Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.' The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, 'Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou are Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

"Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

"Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

"PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff.; Matt 8:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose." --W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 195.

"On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and Petros: petra = kepha = Petros." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

"On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would be occur in both places) . . . ." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

"The natural reading of the passage [Mat 16:18], despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built (thus rightly Morris, France, Carson, Blomberg, Cullman [Peter, 207], Davies-Allison; so too the interconfessional volume by Brown, Donfried, and Reumann [Peter in the NT, 92])."
--Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.
 
  • Love
Reactions: The Learner

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,365
2,399
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Genesis 2:2-3 is not a command for Jews OR Christians to observe a Sabbath. It is God setting the example for men.
I see it more like a promise to end the 7th day like all the other “days” of creation….with a declaration that all God had accomplished was “very good”. He blessed this 7th day because during this period, (not a literal 24 hour day as many imagine) he would have dealt with all contingencies that arose as the consequence of misusing free will. It was the trickiest part of all his creative acts. Free will had to be governed by God’s will, not Satan’s will, and certainly not man’s will. Yet in order to be free it had to have overriding conditions….one person’s free will could not impeded the free will of another……so apparently all of God’s intelligent children needed to learn this lesson before God progressed with any future plans for the Universe.

In heaven, God’s spirit sons had no rivals or those who could see themselves as objects of worship. Only with the creation of lower intelligent life was this possibility introduced. In this 7th day, (which I believe is still running) God’s spirit sons would also be tested as to their love and loyalty to their rightful Sovereign.

Most people only concentrate on the fall of man, without considering the more important fall of God’s angels. The first rebel was not human.
With the kind of power they posses, they would be a greater threat to God’s purpose than humans ever knew how to be.

All contingencies would be dealt with in this period before God could add his final declaration at the conclusion of the 7th day…..when all would again be “very good”.

It is also clear that this important object lesson is conducted in universal time (heaven‘s counting of time) not ours…..again because this is not just about us. Why else would would God’s foretold savior take so long to arrive….and then so long to return? Does no one ever think about that?
Kind of like when Jesus was baptized. Shouldn't we follow their examples? Or do you not feel that you are required to follow their examples?
The difference is that baptism was a requirement for Christians…..the observance of a weekly Sabbath was not. Those who came to John B to be baptized in symbol of their repentance over breaches to God’s law (which they were under obligation to keep from birth) were then prepared to receive the one who was to come after him….John was sent by God to “prepare the way”….and once they accepted Jesus as their Messiah and savior, they had to be baptized again, as a public symbol of their discipleship.
Baptism was always full immersion, never just the sprinkling of water, and never conducted on an infant. It was a symbolic death to one’s former life, a burial under the water, and rising up to a new life in Christ. It had to be a person’s own informed choice….there was no such thing as a ‘proxy’ baptism.

I find that not many people have delved into God’s word with the bigger picture in mind. They have a somewhat stunted view of our place in the bigger scheme of things.

What would it mean for God to have a third of his once faithful angels, side with satan and act in a rebellious manner? These wicked “sons of God” had materialized in Noah’s day and wreaked havoc among the humans of that period….this caused God to take drastic action to eliminate their hybrid human offspring and to force their errant fathers back to the spirit realm where he dealt with them according to his purpose. A whole world of mankind at that time was effaced from the earth. It was pictorial of things to come. (Matt 24:37-39)

It was not the time to eliminate them because God was going to allow them to have free access to his human creation so that all of his intelligent children could use their free will like a rope…it could rescue them…..immobilize or entangle them….or it could hang them…..they would decide what to do with the rope and thereby seal their own fate accordingly.

God has given us all the help we need to come through this “day” of testing as victorious servants of the true God, but satan is a masterful deceiver….he doesn’t want mankind to know what he is up to, but God has given us due warning about his techniques…..we have no real excuse to be fooled, except by out own ignorance. If it is an ignorance of choice, then we will have no one to blame for our choices and actions…but ourselves.
We will all be caught in the act of being who we truly are.…the person God sees, not how we see ourselves. We will be the product of what our own heart accepts as truth…..

Yet Jeremiah warned…
“The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.
Who can know it?
10 I, Jehovah, am searching the heart,
Examining the innermost thoughts,
To give to each one according to his ways,
According to the fruitage of his works.”
(Jeremiah 17:9-10)

We will all stand before the same judge…..but who really knows him and the one who “sent” him? (John 17:3) God’s word tells us who they are….but satan has falsely portrayed them both.
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,688
3,045
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What then is the purpose of the Sabbath?Seriously? Why was it included in the Ten Commandments?

And Aunty Jane, why does your translation say in Hebrews 4:4,10 say:
For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows:”And God rested on the seventh day from all his works…For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own.”
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,602
6,447
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
@BreadOfLife
Can you explain why none of those "popes" you mention in the first 5 centuries ever claimed apostolic succession: never cited Matthew 16:18 as the source for authority: and never used Peter's confession or the Lord's affirmation of the heavenly inspiration of that confession as a basis for claim to primacy over all churches?

Care to explain why none of the church fathers over that same period used Matthew 16:18 as the basis for any such thing as succession, primacy, or authority over all churches?
Oh, and please. No citing of forgeries.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Learner

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,365
2,399
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
What then is the purpose of the Sabbath? Seriously? Why was it included in the Ten Commandments?

And Aunty Jane, why does your translation say in Hebrews 4:4,10 say:
For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows:”And God rested on the seventh day from all his works…For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own.”
Hey Cass.....Understanding why the Sabbath law was made for Israel, and what it meant for God to sanctify the 7th day of creation so that He could bless it, is important. These are two different Sabbaths but pictorial of one another. Israel had more than one Sabbath.

The Sabbath rest in Genesis speaks about the 7th day....or the “day” after physical creation was finished. Each period was completed to God’s satisfaction. Each day had a declaration of God’s appraisal and approval of all that he had accomplished in each creative period, which shows that he had planned it all very carefully from the start.

Each creative “day” was assigned a stage in the creative process, and when each was completed, everything was on schedule, ready for the next “day’s” agenda. With the completion of the entire creative process, the only thing left to do, was for the Creator to step back now, and see how it would all work out. God does not need to rest in the physical sense, but he rested only from creating, not from his purpose in creation itself. (John 5:17)

Free will was a bit of a lucky dip, so God was prepared for all eventualities....if there was something that needed correcting, it would be dealt with in this time period. We know what happened as a worse case scenario, but it was nothing that God could not handle in accord with his will. We know all that took place as it is recorded for us in God’s word. We are now in the “the time of the end” as prophesied by Daniel and also reflected in John’s Revelation.

As the last 1000 years of this final “day”, the rulership of Christ as King of God’s kingdom (the instrument that God would use to bring about the completion of his divine will) would bring all things back into harmony with God’s original purpose, and at the completion of the 7th day......again all will be declared, “very good”.

But what about the Sabbath observance mandated to the Jews under God’s law? God connected this with their release from slavery in Egypt.....
Deut 5:15....
“Remember that you became a slave in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. That is why Jehovah your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”

If Israel had already been observing the Sabbath prior to their release from Egypt, it could not have served as a reminder of their deliverance by Jehovah, as shown in the scripture above.

The Law of Moses was not given to any other people, and those Gentiles who became Christians were not commanded to observe a Sabbath or to practice circumcision or to offer sacrifices prescribed in the Law because Christ had fulfilled it, thereby releasing his disciples from it. The “law of love” was now written on hearts. And a new covenant was in force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHC

Peterlag

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2022
2,849
855
113
68
New York
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's great.
This long list of emninent Protestant scholars disagree with your one scholar . . .

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.

"The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter

"Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

"The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

"'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

"Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.


"Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.
Yeah but E.W. Bullinger is the one who is correct. The church was built upon Jesus Christ and not Peter. Another huge red flag telling me I'm right is that the Catholics teach that the church was built on Peter and they have never been right about anything. I would bet my car that most of your scholars are Catholic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Learner

Peterlag

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2022
2,849
855
113
68
New York
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let's be clear: establishing why the church isn't built on Peter requires criticism of Peter as anything but a sure foundation for it.

Peter was a coward who made up for it with bravado: he denied Jesus in fear for his life after being warned not to deny Him, he feared rejection of legalistic Jews, feared rejection of his own Christian peers. Yes, he went on to spiritually mature, but well after the founding of Christ's church on the sure foundation of what Peter said, not Peter himself.
I do not see what you see. Peter was a strict Jewish boy who even as an Apostle worked mostly with Israel. I never read a verse that said Peter was warned not to deny Jesus. I personally follow the writings of Paul and not Peter. I don't see Peter as anything other than an awesome guy to be able to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ who raised people from the dead and a personal friend of Jesus Christ.
 

Peterlag

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2022
2,849
855
113
68
New York
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Got it.
There's a lot of guys like you on here. When they speak it's God's Word. When I speak it's my opinion. Or as you put it today disagrees with me. You do not know who Jesus Christ is and therefore there's no way you can teach the truth of the gospel. So yeah, you teach lies and I do not believe that's my opinion.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I see it more like a promise to end the 7th day like all the other “days” of creation….with a declaration that all God had accomplished was “very good”. He blessed this 7th day because during this period, (not a literal 24 hour day as many imagine) he would have dealt with all contingencies that arose as the consequence of misusing free will. It was the trickiest part of all his creative acts. Free will had to be governed by God’s will, not Satan’s will, and certainly not man’s will. Yet in order to be free it had to have overriding conditions….one person’s free will could not impeded the free will of another……so apparently all of God’s intelligent children needed to learn this lesson before God progressed with any future plans for the Universe.

In heaven, God’s spirit sons had no rivals or those who could see themselves as objects of worship. Only with the creation of lower intelligent life was this possibility introduced. In this 7th day, (which I believe is still running) God’s spirit sons would also be tested as to their love and loyalty to their rightful Sovereign.

Most people only concentrate on the fall of man, without considering the more important fall of God’s angels. The first rebel was not human.
With the kind of power they posses, they would be a greater threat to God’s purpose than humans ever knew how to be.

All contingencies would be dealt with in this period before God could add his final declaration at the conclusion of the 7th day…..when all would again be “very good”.

It is also clear that this important object lesson is conducted in universal time (heaven‘s counting of time) not ours…..again because this is not just about us. Why else would would God’s foretold savior take so long to arrive….and then so long to return? Does no one ever think about that?

The difference is that baptism was a requirement for Christians…..the observance of a weekly Sabbath was not. Those who came to John B to be baptized in symbol of their repentance over breaches to God’s law (which they were under obligation to keep from birth) were then prepared to receive the one who was to come after him….John was sent by God to “prepare the way”….and once they accepted Jesus as their Messiah and savior, they had to be baptized again, as a public symbol of their discipleship.
Baptism was always full immersion, never just the sprinkling of water, and never conducted on an infant. It was a symbolic death to one’s former life, a burial under the water, and rising up to a new life in Christ. It had to be a person’s own informed choice….there was no such thing as a ‘proxy’ baptism.

I find that not many people have delved into God’s word with the bigger picture in mind. They have a somewhat stunted view of our place in the bigger scheme of things.

What would it mean for God to have a third of his once faithful angels, side with satan and act in a rebellious manner? These wicked “sons of God” had materialized in Noah’s day and wreaked havoc among the humans of that period….this caused God to take drastic action to eliminate their hybrid human offspring and to force their errant fathers back to the spirit realm where he dealt with them according to his purpose. A whole world of mankind at that time was effaced from the earth. It was pictorial of things to come. (Matt 24:37-39)

It was not the time to eliminate them because God was going to allow them to have free access to his human creation so that all of his intelligent children could use their free will like a rope…it could rescue them…..immobilize or entangle them….or it could hang them…..they would decide what to do with the rope and thereby seal their own fate accordingly.

God has given us all the help we need to come through this “day” of testing as victorious servants of the true God, but satan is a masterful deceiver….he doesn’t want mankind to know what he is up to, but God has given us due warning about his techniques…..we have no real excuse to be fooled, except by out own ignorance. If it is an ignorance of choice, then we will have no one to blame for our choices and actions…but ourselves.
We will all be caught in the act of being who we truly are.…the person God sees, not how we see ourselves. We will be the product of what our own heart accepts as truth…..

Yet Jeremiah warned…
“The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.
Who can know it?
10 I, Jehovah, am searching the heart,
Examining the innermost thoughts,
To give to each one according to his ways,
According to the fruitage of his works.”
(Jeremiah 17:9-10)

We will all stand before the same judge…..but who really knows him and the one who “sent” him? (John 17:3) God’s word tells us who they are….but satan has falsely portrayed them both.
WOW......over 800 words and I still don't see an answer. :IDK:

God rested on the 7th day and called it Holy. He then commanded the Jews to rest on that Holy day.

Do you think that you should follow Gods example and rest on the Christian holy day?

Patient Mary
 
  • Love
Reactions: The Learner

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,289
557
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There's a lot of guys like you on here. When they speak it's God's Word. When I speak it's my opinion. Or as you put it today disagrees with me. You do not know who Jesus Christ is and therefore there's no way you can teach the truth of the gospel. So yeah, you teach lies and I do not believe that's my opinion.
I have never claimed to be speaking "God's word." Anyway, you need a dictionary, my friend. A "lie" is an intentional falsehood, something known by the declarant to be untrue when declared. (Like saying your book is an award-winning book.) Expressions of honestly-held opinions cannot be lies even if those opinions are mistaken.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are right on about Peter being a small or rolling stone meaning unstable. But he was no coward because he was saving his life. This man became an Apostle of Jesus Christ who raised people from the dead and who was a friend of the Lords. E. W. Bullinger who is one of the greatest scholars in the world. has that rock as a rolling stone in his Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: indicating Peter was unstable. E.W. Bullinger is the one who is correct.


Hey Peterlag,

@BreadOfLife beat me to it in post #627 AND 628 showing how Bullingers interpretation has been roundly refuted. Thanks BOL for saving me all that research.

Peter, since you believe that Bullinger is one of the greatest scholars in the world do you adhere to all his interpretations of Scripture?

Curious Mary
 

Peterlag

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2022
2,849
855
113
68
New York
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey Peterlag,

@BreadOfLife beat me to it in post #627 AND 628 showing how Bullingers interpretation has been roundly refuted. Thanks BOL for saving me all that research.

Peter, since you believe that Bullinger is one of the greatest scholars in the world do you adhere to all his interpretations of Scripture?

Curious Mary
No I don't know of a man who is right about everything. But I believe Bullinger is right on this subject. Even a guy like me had 5 different teachers because I could only learn in part from any one of them.