Peter Was Never The Rock

  • 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!

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Sorry for misreading you, but somehow, it still comes across that way.

Do entertain the possibility that the keys to the kingdom was not being given to Peter when the disciples were also in the room when Jesus had said this. Renaming Peter can be symbolic of when he becomes a new creature ( thus saved ) after His ascension, the power to loose & bind is given to every believer and not just to Peter & the disciples that Jesus was talking to when asking them "Who say ye that I am?" Note how this event ended when he addressed all His disciples.

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

It all depends on a point of view that Jesus was addressing every one and just because He took that moment to rename Simon as Peter, it did not mean He continued to speak only to Peter but to all on the revelation that the Father had given through Simon.

Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you [singular in the Greek], Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you [singular in the Greek], but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you [singular in the Greek], you [singular in the Greek] are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you [singular in the Greek] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you [singular in the Greek] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [singular in the Greek] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And they weren't in any room. Didn't you read my post? They were at Caesarea Philippi where there is a massive cliff face (rock) on which were built temples to various pagan Gods. Then Jesus says to Kephas (Rock) "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church." Geddit!??
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Thank you for sharing, but if I may offer a different reading and a suggestion. Try not to read that with the perception that Jesus was talking about Peter being the rock that the church would be built on that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. Read this again...

"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many." (Is 51:1-2)

They knew they were descendents of Abraham, but they were to look at Abraham as one whom God called him and blessed him and made him many; therefore Israel were to look to God as their rock from which they had come from.

Read this in the King James Bible in how we are to apply those words to mean who we are to look to.

Isaiah 51:1Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.3 For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.4 Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

So Abraham & Sarah was not the rock to look to; but to the Lord that made Abraham the nation of Israel.

Very imaginative but God is clearly referring to Abraham as the rock from which they were hewn. He says look to the rock....look to Abraham.
 

PGS11

New Member
Jun 7, 2011
10
0
1
Winnipeg
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The holy spirit had not yet come upon Peter or any of the disciples at that time - that did not happen until after the crucifixion - which at the time of the crucifixion - they thought Jesus was dead - all of them and did not believe he would rise from the dead - but in the Acts of the Apostles we see the Holy Spirit come alive and upon Peter - a new and bold Peter preaching the word of God and leading the disciples - hardly far to judge him on the bible line you proposed.

Peter was always putting his foot in him mouth and Jesus would always rebuke him - not to condemn him but to teach him and those around him.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Very imaginative but God is clearly referring to Abraham as the rock from which they were hewn. He says look to the rock....look to Abraham.

Read it again.

Isaiah 51:1Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

What is this invitation to look to the rock for? To follow righteousness? To seek the Lord? To be called, blessed, and increased? Can looking to Abraham and Sarah do that for them or to the Lord?

Now read how looking to the Lord as their rock will bring.


3 For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody. 4 Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.

So He is not talking bout looking to Abraham & Sarah for that, but to the Rock Whom is our God.

Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you [singular in the Greek], Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you [singular in the Greek], but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you [singular in the Greek], you [singular in the Greek] are Peter, ....and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you [singular in the Greek] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you [singular in the Greek] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [singular in the Greek] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

There are other Greek words around that word that hardly places it as ONLY singular in the Greek.

Take the scripture in context because His disciples did not take off when Peter answered Him.

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

So His disciples were there in that place when Jesus was talking to them all. He was talking about Peter to Peter & to His disciples, but when He began talking about the rock that the church will be built upon that the gates of hades shall not prevail against; that rock was Christ.

And they weren't in any room. Didn't you read my post? They were at Caesarea Philippi where there is a massive cliff face (rock) on which were built temples to various pagan Gods. Then Jesus says to Kephas (Rock) "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church." Geddit!??

He said "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter & the rock that the church will be built upon is not the same thing. Jesus testified that He will build His church. Not Peter. If Peter was really the rock, don't you think He would say singular YOU will build Your church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against?

You can know that you are reading Him wrong when you see other scripture, testifying from Who the church is built from.

Luke 20:17And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Even Peter said so..

1 Peter 2:7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1 Corinthians 3:11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:


I do not see Paul speaking of Peter as being the chief corner stone from which the church is built from.

I reckon you have to be there but He was speaking to His disciples when He began and yes, He may have announced Simon's new name of Peter to Simon and to His disciples, but He was telling then that upon the revelation that Peter had given of Him being God, yeah.. that rock... He wll build His church; not Peter.. not Peter's church.. but He will do it as He is the chief cornerstone as well as the rock of our salvation.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The holy spirit had not yet come upon Peter or any of the disciples at that time - that did not happen until after the crucifixion - which at the time of the crucifixion - they thought Jesus was dead - all of them and did not believe he would rise from the dead - but in the Acts of the Apostles we see the Holy Spirit come alive and upon Peter - a new and bold Peter preaching the word of God and leading the disciples - hardly far to judge him on the bible line you proposed.

It was prophesied that Peter would deny Him 3 times and His disciples would flee when He got arrested. The point was that if that designation was him being the Rock from which the church was built from, hardly a chief cornerstone as Jesus is, but yes, he is a part of the building as we all are from which we can boast in the Lord and not glory in men nor glory in Peter.

Peter was always putting his foot in him mouth and Jesus would always rebuke him - not to condemn him but to teach him and those around him.

True. Any one could have made the mistakes that Peter had made if we were in his place and so his shortcoming is why we are not to look to Peter for help, strength or whatever... since Peter himself was looking to Christ Jesus, the head of the church and the head of every believer including Peter.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Read it again.

Isaiah 51:1Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

What is this invitation to look to the rock for? To follow righteousness? To seek the Lord? To be called, blessed, and increased? Can looking to Abraham and Sarah do that for them or to the Lord?

.

Yes, that is exactly the point.
Read this properly;
"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance [or follow after righteousness], you who seek the Lord
Are you following after pursuing deliverance/ following after righteousness?
Are you seeking the Lord?
He tells them what to do:
look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged..
What is that? Where do they have to look: Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you.
Is Abraham going to give them righteousness? No - BUT
Abraham is the example of righteousness that they are to look to and learn from.
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith (Heb 13:7)
Remember that to the Jews they were sons and daughters of Abraham.He was their father in faith
What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? ...... For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:1&3)
Look to Abraham; look to his faith and imitate him.
That is the message of Isaia 51:1-2
Then the LORD will comfort Zion..... etc.

After writing the above I had to go out, but since there is no reply yet I will add the following:

We can see that Abraham is used as a model for us to follow in several places in the New Testament.

1. He [Abraham] received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Rom 4:11-12)

2. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. (Jas 2:21-23).

3. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. (Heb 11:8-9)
 
Last edited:

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Peter is not accredited for giving that revelation about Jesus being the Christ and thus God. It was revealed by the Father. So when Jesus said this next, He was not awarding Peter for that revelation, but testifying about that revelation from the Father.


18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Amen...that is absolutely correct.

Convenient how the meaning Peter's name (Simon) is Rock, isn't it? As if to send strong delusion. 2 Thessalonians 2:11
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 1:42 KJV
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

I've seen many comment on Peter meaning "a stone", but lets look at something a little less obvious: the timing.

This was by John's account the first meeting of Jesus and Simon Peter. He was given the name right then; not when Peter received the revelation in Mat 16:18. Perhaps you can say it was mere prophecy that he would be called Peter.... But I tend to believe that Jesus gave him the name right there and then.

Matthew 16:17-18 KJV
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Please note the bold words. They say this and it. They do not say "you". Again, he was alrady given the name Peter. Coupled with the translation that notes a thing instead of a person, I believe this rock and the "it" was the revelation that was given to Peter; not Peter himself.

Ephesians 2:20 KJV
And [the household of God] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;

Here we see the Church is built on the apostles and prophets, right? WRONG! I used to think that but that's not what it says. It was built on their foundation. Not they themselves. In otherwords, its built on their teaching.

Peter had only a twelth of the apostleship. It wasn't built on him alone. But they all shared the same foundation.

Finally, I don't believe Peter started the Church at Rome. I believe that honor goes to Paul if any one person. Frankly I supect it was started much like Antioch: believers gathered there with no real leadership and then the leadership came. But perhaps that should be saved for another time.

In short... Peter was a powerful apostle... Clearly one of Jesus's inner circle. But given the points above... He was not that rock in Mat 16.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, that is exactly the point.
Read this properly;
"Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance [or follow after righteousness], you who seek the Lord
Are you following after pursuing deliverance/ following after righteousness?
Are you seeking the Lord?
He tells them what to do:
look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged..
What is that? Where do they have to look: Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you.
Is Abraham going to give them righteousness? No - BUT
Abraham is the example of righteousness that they are to look to and learn from.
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith (Heb 13:7)
Remember that to the Jews they were sons and daughters of Abraham.He was their father in faith
What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? ...... For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:1&3)
Look to Abraham; look to his faith and imitate him.
That is the message of Isaia 51:1-2
Then the LORD will comfort Zion..... etc.

After writing the above I had to go out, but since there is no reply yet I will add the following:

We can see that Abraham is used as a model for us to follow in several places in the New Testament.

1. He [Abraham] received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Rom 4:11-12)

2. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. (Jas 2:21-23).

3. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. (Heb 11:8-9)

Considering how the Lord performed a miracle for the old barren Sarah to give birth to Isaac, the reference to them was a reminder that they exists by the Lord Whom is their rock... and it is to Him Who called, blessed, and increase them is where Israel is today as they are to look to Him.

Thanks for sharing, but it looks like we agree to disagree.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Amen...that is absolutely correct.

Convenient how the meaning Peter's name (Simon) is Rock, isn't it? As if to send strong delusion. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

What is amazing is how John 1:42 defines what Cephas is.. a stone, and yet somehow, everyone uses other verses and refer to the Greek to find another meaning.. The Greek word PetroV is used for Peter whereas petra is used for rock in Matthew 16:18. One has to wonder if scholars want PetroV to be Kephas or as spelled KhfaV, because scripture tells us otherwise that Cephas, the name for Peter means stone in John 1:42.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 1:42 KJV
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

I've seen many comment on Peter meaning "a stone", but lets look at something a little less obvious: the timing.

This was by John's account the first meeting of Jesus and Simon Peter. He was given the name right then; not when Peter received the revelation in Mat 16:18. Perhaps you can say it was mere prophecy that he would be called Peter.... But I tend to believe that Jesus gave him the name right there and then.

Matthew 16:17-18 KJV
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Please note the bold words. They say this and it. They do not say "you". Again, he was alrady given the name Peter. Coupled with the translation that notes a thing instead of a person, I believe this rock and the "it" was the revelation that was given to Peter; not Peter himself.

Ephesians 2:20 KJV
And [the household of God] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ;

Here we see the Church is built on the apostles and prophets, right? WRONG! I used to think that but that's not what it says. It was built on their foundation. Not they themselves. In otherwords, its built on their teaching.

Peter had only a twelth of the apostleship. It wasn't built on him alone. But they all shared the same foundation.

Finally, I don't believe Peter started the Church at Rome. I believe that honor goes to Paul if any one person. Frankly I supect it was started much like Antioch: believers gathered there with no real leadership and then the leadership came. But perhaps that should be saved for another time.

In short... Peter was a powerful apostle... Clearly one of Jesus's inner circle. But given the points above... He was not that rock in Mat 16.

Thanks for sharing. It is an interesting note to point that out that Peter was to the circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles or the uncircumcision.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Regardless of the scripture and this cold hard fact, the Church at Rome will still say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FHII

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for sharing. It is an interesting note to point that out that Peter was to the circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles or the uncircumcision.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Regardless of the scripture and this cold hard fact, the Church at Rome will still say otherwise.

If you bring up that
Thanks for sharing. It is an interesting note to point that out that Peter was to the circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles or the uncircumcision.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Regardless of the scripture and this cold hard fact, the Church at Rome will still say otherwise.


There is a slight flaw in your thinking if your point is that Romans were of the uncircumcision. Look at the last chapter of acts and you will see that in Rome Paul first preached to the Jews. Some believed and some didn't. Overall, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter to the Jews. But it wasn't so rigid.

The Bible says Paul was there so I believe that. The Bible suggests that Peter was there too as he mentions Babylon. I believe that to be a knickname (not some secret code word) for Rome. Other historical writings also place Peter in Rome. However, only through presidence is his being in Rome noteworthy. He was a much welcomed guest and celebrity in Paul's Church.
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you bring up that



There is a slight flaw in your thinking if your point is that Romans were of the uncircumcision. Look at the last chapter of acts and you will see that in Rome Paul first preached to the Jews. Some believed and some didn't. Overall, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter to the Jews. But it wasn't so rigid.

I still kinda see Romans as being of the uncircumcision. Yes, there were Jews there as I am sure other foreigners were, but Paul was in chains under Roman guards which seems to serve as a distinction since Paul was delivered from Jerusalem to the Romans as from the circumcision in being handed over to the uncircumcision. The charges which would be Jewish charges, would bring the chiefs of the Jews living in Rome to hear Paul's defense regarding the charges that were brought against Paul from other Jews in authority at Jerusalem that had sent Paul to Rome for.

The Bible says Paul was there so I believe that. The Bible suggests that Peter was there too as he mentions Babylon. I believe that to be a knickname (not some secret code word) for Rome. Other historical writings also place Peter in Rome. However, only through presidence is his being in Rome noteworthy. He was a much welcomed guest and celebrity in Paul's Church.

I believe Paul was in Rome too.

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Seeing how he was addressing believers that should read this as scattered throughout a large area..

1 Peter 1:1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

I am not sure Peter would use that word as a secret code when Paul didn't when addressing the Romans. He may actually be referring to the original area of Babylon where the church was at in giving them their regards to other believers so to speak. We shall know for sure in Heaven.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
What is amazing is how John 1:42 defines what Cephas is.. a stone, and yet somehow, everyone uses other verses and refer to the Greek to find another meaning.. The Greek word PetroV is used for Peter whereas petra is used for rock in Matthew 16:18. One has to wonder if scholars want PetroV to be Kephas or as spelled KhfaV, because scripture tells us otherwise that Cephas, the name for Peter means stone in John 1:42.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

Petros is the masculine form of petra. Simon could hardly be addressed in the feminine form could he?

Since you raise Strong let's look mat what Strong says:
John 1:42
"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter )
Cephas (which means Peter) in the Greek is: kephas ho hermeneuetal petros.

kephas is Strong G2786
G2786
Kephas
kay-fas'
Of Chaldee origin; the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter:—Cephas.

hermeneuetal is Strong 00472059
G2059
hermeneuo
her-mayn-yoo'-o
From a presumed derivative of G2060 (as the god of language); to translate:—interpret.

petros is Strong G4074
G4074
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock as a name, Petrus, an apostle:—Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

Strong agrees that Simon renamed kephas which means rock, and is translated into Greek as Petros which means rock.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Thanks for sharing. It is an interesting note to point that out that Peter was to the circumcision as Paul was to the Gentiles or the uncircumcision.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Regardless of the scripture and this cold hard fact, the Church at Rome will still say otherwise.

The cold hard facts are that when Paul went out to the Gentile nations he went to the Jewish synagogues first to start converting the Jews.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
If you bring up that



There is a slight flaw in your thinking if your point is that Romans were of the uncircumcision. Look at the last chapter of acts and you will see that in Rome Paul first preached to the Jews. Some believed and some didn't. Overall, Paul was sent to the gentiles. Peter to the Jews. But it wasn't so rigid.

The Bible says Paul was there so I believe that. The Bible suggests that Peter was there too as he mentions Babylon. I believe that to be a knickname (not some secret code word) for Rome. Other historical writings also place Peter in Rome. However, only through presidence is his being in Rome noteworthy. He was a much welcomed guest and celebrity in Paul's Church.

Rome wasn't Paul's Church. Peter was there first.
In his letter to the Roman's Paul writes that he does not wish to build on another man's foundation.
Only an apostle could lay a foundation and the only apostle known to have visited Rome before Paul was Peter.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Only an apostle could lay a foundation and the only apostle known to have visited Rome before Paul was Peter.
Hmmm thats odd, so than Peter built on our Lords foundation, naughty boy,,,

So what is it all about. Well it is an excuse to seperate man from God. That is all religion does. Jesus died so we "ALL" could have Him, if we all have Him than we have no place for church and that means these men, who rule and reign over you wil have no power and authority..This bit

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

But relgion has rejected Christ so that men could do as Jesus said we ahouldnt do, and have men to rule and reign over teh people. So just as teh Jews rejecetd God who was to rule over them religion has rejected Christ and given authority to men who should not have it.

As Jesus said

Joh_15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me

and
Joh_14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

But if you are going to put men between you and Jesus, than you are on your own

Joh_8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

But men choose teh darkness.

Narrow is teh way....
 
Last edited:

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Petros is the masculine form of petra. Simon could hardly be addressed in the feminine form could he?

All the more why you should not believe that Jesus was addressing Peter as being that Rock.

Since you raise Strong let's look mat what Strong says:
John 1:42
"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter )
Cephas (which means Peter) in the Greek is: kephas ho hermeneuetal petros.

kephas is Strong G2786
G2786
Kephas
kay-fas'
Of Chaldee origin; the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter:—Cephas.

hermeneuetal is Strong 00472059
G2059
hermeneuo
her-mayn-yoo'-o
From a presumed derivative of G2060 (as the god of language); to translate:—interpret.

petros is Strong G4074
G4074
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock as a name, Petrus, an apostle:—Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

Strong agrees that Simon renamed kephas which means rock, and is translated into Greek as Petros which means rock.

At this link, try clicking on all the blue lettered Greek words mirroring verse Matthew 16:18.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

The Chaldee origin from which Kepha hails from is circumspect to have it as the same meaning and to apply it as the same meaning.

I still point out John 1:42 to offer proof that modern day scholars and Strong's Concordance has it wrong. When the scripture plainly comes out and says stone, then stone it is; not rock.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Scripture trumps Strong's Concordance.

It is the same with pneuma which by one of its many definitions can be referring to the Holy Spirit, but it can also apply to other things, clearly no association with the Person of the Holy Spirit as seen below.

"from pnew - pneo 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit:--ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare yuch - psuche 5590."

So how it is used in the verse by the surrounding words, defines that Greek word "pneuma".

The same for the rock which the gates of hell shall not prevail against from which the church shall be built upon.

So what is the church built upon? What foundation? What head of the corner? What chief corner stone? It is not Peter. It is the Lord Jesus Christ.

When the whole topic and speech was about "Who say ye that I am?" Then the rock can only be referring to Jesus Chris Himself based on the revelation from the Father through Peter. You do not go from defining Who Jesus is to exalting Peter over Jesus. Jesus did not debase Himself by exalting Peter in the end of that discussion of "Who say ye that I am?"

To give that glory to Peter as if being rewarded for that revelation when the Father was the One that said it through Simon, is an error of man's reading as well as man's thinking, which happens to be in the majority, it seems. Wisdom in understanding His words can only come from the Lord.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
All the more why you should not believe that Jesus was addressing Peter as being that Rock.



At this link, try clicking on all the blue lettered Greek words mirroring verse Matthew 16:18.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

The Chaldee origin from which Kepha hails from is circumspect to have it as the same meaning and to apply it as the same meaning.

I still point out John 1:42 to offer proof that modern day scholars and Strong's Concordance has it wrong. When the scripture plainly comes out and says stone, then stone it is; not rock.

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

.

Oh yes, I get it now.

The KJV translation trumps anything else. :rolleyes:
 

JesusIsFaithful

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2015
1,765
438
83
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Rome wasn't Paul's Church. Peter was there first.
In his letter to the Roman's Paul writes that he does not wish to build on another man's foundation.
Only an apostle could lay a foundation and the only apostle known to have visited Rome before Paul was Peter.

And yet, by writing to the Romans, he built on the foundation laid by Peter? You have to be reading his words wrong.

Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

So Paul confirms that Jesus is the rock; not Peter.

Do provide scripture that Peter was in Rome first.

Peter was in Jerusalem where Paul went to

Galatians 1:18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Then Peter came to Antioch where Paul was and Paul had to rebuke Peter for separating himself as a bad example from Gentile believers.

Galatians 2:11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Peter has been traveling all over so I am sure he was in Rome too, but first before Paul? Where is the scripture on that? And surely, where is his work to build the church at Rome? For all the hoopla over Peter being the rock, he has been quite negligent in building his church at Rome. So Peter was not the rock after all.