Built On The Wrong Apostle
- Thread starter H. Richard
- Start date
-
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!
Who do you think discerned what books belong in the NT in the 1st place??? Did Paul live to the year 397 AD???
So what. My list covers the whole NT. They are indicators, not proof texts.
Peter was leader of the apostles and of the whole church. There's no way around it, unless you start denying scriptures. (not to mention history), which you have no use for. It's not me cooking the books.
Peter was invested in royal terms, see my point?
i made over 70 points from scripture indicating Peter's role as leader of the apostles and of the whole church. Starting churches was not Peter's job, leading them was "In other words, playing on meaningless stats and ignoring others that really mean more." I am not the one ignoring the significant other verses. Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom when Paul was a stuffed up pharisee. I admit some of my points carry more weight than others, but to deny Peter's role as leader is to do violence to scripture and all of Christian history. "The wrong apostle" is an insult to Peter's chair.
Show me 70+ biblical points indicating Paul as leader of the apostles as I have done with Peter; then I will take you seriously. Note: an indication is not a proof -text, I should have made that clear from the beginning.
Just as you can't understand how the Bible took 350 to develop, you can't understand how the papacy underwent development.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bit like
Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
and like this
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
So they keep rejecting Christ as Head.
John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 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" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. 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). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 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 his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“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.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]
Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…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.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . 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" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.
Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 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" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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 . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)
J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. 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). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 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 his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“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.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]
Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…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.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . 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" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.
Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
@kepha31
It's highly unlikely that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16. The use of the demonstrative pronoun ταύτη (this) in "this rock" points away from Peter to something else. Jesus addressed Peter directly as the Greek text clearly indicates. Since when is it a legitimate use of language to look someone in the eye, address them directly, and refer to them as "this?" Jesus begins his direct address of Peter with two personal pronouns.
"And I tell you, you are Peter..."
The idea that Jesus would then switch to the demonstrative pronoun "this" while addressing Peter directly is ridiculous and far-fetched.
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..."
Clearly Jesus is pointing to something other than Peter. "This" most likely refers to Peter's confession. That makes perfect sense.
It's highly unlikely that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16. The use of the demonstrative pronoun ταύτη (this) in "this rock" points away from Peter to something else. Jesus addressed Peter directly as the Greek text clearly indicates. Since when is it a legitimate use of language to look someone in the eye, address them directly, and refer to them as "this?" Jesus begins his direct address of Peter with two personal pronouns.
"And I tell you, you are Peter..."
The idea that Jesus would then switch to the demonstrative pronoun "this" while addressing Peter directly is ridiculous and far-fetched.
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..."
Clearly Jesus is pointing to something other than Peter. "This" most likely refers to Peter's confession. That makes perfect sense.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
You are pebble and on this rock I will build my church....sounds like vintage Jesus to me
Reminiscent of the mustard seed flourishing into great faith
Reminiscent of the mustard seed flourishing into great faith
JesusIsFaithful
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2015
- 1,765
- 438
- 83
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Save for Ezekiel 26:14 in that list of references at Bible Gateway, rock is always associated with deity.
BibleGateway - : God rock
And one reference in the N.T.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
That proves that Jesus was referring to what Peter had said rather than on Peter as if he was getting a reward for saying so when Jesus got thrugh giving the credit for what Peter had said to the Father.
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.
If Jesus had meant Peter, then His word did not last long for the gates of hell to not win over Peter.
Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Since we know that His words are true, then it has to be a misapplication in applying His words to Peter being the rock when it was really referring to Peter's testimony of the Son which scripture confirms later on that the gates of hell did not prevail against Jesus since He has the keys now.
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
That is completely irrelevant to what you quoted.
You are saying "so what" to my quote which states half of acts is following Paul. What you fail to acknowledge is the point I was making. That point is that mention of names means nothing. It is not an indicator of importance.
Peter did not cease to be important after acts 15. But the accounts simply stopped following him. They followed Paul after that point. Again, that doesn't mean his importance deminished. It means after acts 15 and the rest of the NT is mostly about Paul and his teachings. Trying to point to the number of times Peter is mentioned is fruitless in showing his importance.
Really? Well golly gee. I thought Jesus was the leader. I mean... Paul pointed to Jesus, not Peter.
Peter was the most prominent disciple during Jesus's ministry. So much so that yes, the disciples turned to Peter when tough questions had to be asked. It got him much favor but also got him in trouble quite a bit (which in a quirky way was a good thing).
That leadership spilled over all the way until Paul. The two apostles respected each other... But Peter was not the leader of Paul. Paul was going to do (and did ) what Jesus instructed him to do whether Peter liked it or not.
As for me denying the scriptures or having no use for history... Please tell me how I have done that. What scripture have I denied? I didn't say not discuss. There are many I haven't addressed. I didn't say disagree with you on. We disagree on many. Which ones have I denied?
Same with history. .. What history have I denied? That will be easier for you because I don't think a lot of the history concerning Peter being the first bishop of Rome is accurate.
You said it wasn't you cooking the books. That seems to imply I am. How so? And yes touting how many times Peter is mentioned IS cooking the books. I am not touting one apostle above another. You are!
No. I don't! Peter wasn't a king! Part of a royal priesthood, yes... But we are too!
I am not denying you did. I disagree with some and others I don't. Jesus was the leader of the apostles and the Church. Peter was the most prominant of them and came to be the spokesman for them. He was NOT the leader of the whole church. Paul was sent to the gentiles. Not Peter. Yea.. I know about Cornelius... That doesn't mean Peter was sent to the gentiles any mor than Paul being sent ro the Jews because of Priscilka and Aquilla.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
pia
Well-Known Member
Reading through your posts to one another, I could only think that it's all a pointless argument....We know that the Roman Emperor brought together a council at Nicea in 300 and something AD, and that they 'threw out' many many gospels and other things, some of which was in fact a gospel written by Peter where He basically states, that it's all about a living relationship with God..... Also no one knows exactly who any of the people actually were who are attributed with writing most of it and no original documents exist.....So at best, we can say that the Bible is incomplete......However, what is wrong about a living relationship with Him, since we have been offered that ?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
pia
Well-Known Member
That is assuming these people were 'experts' ? The reason I do seek Him about things, is because He has proven Himself to me, where as the people who began that whole mix of political and spiritual mixture, I don't know any of them from a bar of soap, so I am surely not going to take something as precious as my eternal life, and risk my life on that..What Jesus says and what I have learned about Him ( yes, bits from the Bible too ), now that is zero risk, so yeah.....I'll go with Him, thanks.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Peter's supremacy?
Didn't Paul rebuke Peter to his face?
Peter and the 11 had their role in ushering in the Kingdom, but Israel turned their back and the Holy Ghost led them away from an unsaved Jerusalem. The Kingdom plan failed and the gentiles were ushered in with Paul and Gospel of Grace - gentile salvation by Israel's fall, instead of their rise. This is why they did not replace James with another apostle when he was killed - God knew the 12 thrones would not be filled this time around. We never hear from Peter again after mid acts - just a few years after Paul's Gospel was set in motion - a change of guard if you will. There is no supremacy in man - all the apostles, Paul included, carried out their mission as directed by God. All paid the price; all are with God today, save one - Judas
Didn't Paul rebuke Peter to his face?
Peter and the 11 had their role in ushering in the Kingdom, but Israel turned their back and the Holy Ghost led them away from an unsaved Jerusalem. The Kingdom plan failed and the gentiles were ushered in with Paul and Gospel of Grace - gentile salvation by Israel's fall, instead of their rise. This is why they did not replace James with another apostle when he was killed - God knew the 12 thrones would not be filled this time around. We never hear from Peter again after mid acts - just a few years after Paul's Gospel was set in motion - a change of guard if you will. There is no supremacy in man - all the apostles, Paul included, carried out their mission as directed by God. All paid the price; all are with God today, save one - Judas
Well so did Jesus,
Luk_10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Mat_21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
and I do doubt that after all this time His attitude has changed
too many smart men for God
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
The Pharisees were ‘dead right’ - jesus called out their hypocrisy, not their teaching
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,439
- 1,697
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Marymog
I have read that verse and many of the professional and forum commentaries. I am not convinced Jesus was saying he would build his Church on Peter. He was speaking of the revelation Peter gave.
Have you considered 1 Cor 3:10-11 where Paul speaks of himself building the foundation and the Church? Or that in Eph 2:20 where Paul says we are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets [not Peter alone]?
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
This is a myth that never seems to die. The ecumenical council of Nicea (325 AD) didn't address the canon of Scripture. The first councils to do so were the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). If you would like to see for yourself, I'm providing a link to Philip Schaff's History Of The Christian Church. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
If you want to skip right to the description of the council go to the section entitled: § 120. The Council of Nicaea, 325.
pia
Well-Known Member
Until I actually saw and spoke to Jesus myself, MY opinion was that God most likely did not exist, so because He showed me I had been 100% wrong on that, I take His word for things...why do you have a problem with that ? I am not opposed to what they have written, but that was their lives with Him, I am seeking to have my own relationship with Him, since He offered....
Similar threads
