Peter Was Never The Rock

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by JesusIsFaithful, May 17, 2017 at 2:07 PM.

  1. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    318
    26
    I was referring to the Greek words that the King James was translated from at that link, but if you are one to heed anti-KJV prejudices all over the internet to put doubts in the meaning of God's words to side step that point, go ahead. I can't stop you.

    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. KJV

    John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Petera]">[a]). NIV
    Footnotes:
    1. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.
    The ESV and the NASB and the Douay Rheims American edition ( normally a Catholic Bible reference ) has the rendering of NIV.

    Jesus has led me to rely on Him in understanding His words in the KJV rather than on modern Bibles since they are still trying to church out easier to read Bibles than the KJV. By His discernment, I have seen how the truth can get lost in translations in modern Bibles that it supports apostasy today. But only the Lord can show you that and why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words.
     
  2. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    1,548
    53
    That does no such thing.

    Why? are you of the Henry Ford school that "history is bunk".

    Sola scriptura is an unbiblical and illogical doctrine and I do not subscribe to it, nor did anyone for the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. Why should I start now?

    Here is the timeline:
    Peter starts in Jerusalem. He goes to Antioch and is bishop of Antioch for several years.

    At Pentecost we know that there were Jews from Rome and it is likely that some of them took the gospel to Rome. But the Church there needed an apostle to found it properly. And that apostle was Peter. In AD 42 James was killed by Herod Agrippa, who also arrested Peter. But Peter was miraculously released and then it concludes: Then he departed and went to another place.

    Catholic tradition says “another place” was a code for Rome. There is an ancient tradition that Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that Peter’s pontificate in Rome lasted for 25 years. As he was executed in 67 AD that ties in with the date of 42 AD.

    In Acts Peter is absent from Jerusalem from about 42 AD until 49 AD when he re-appears in Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.

    Why? The answer is that in Rome in 49 AD there was much trouble in Rome and the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem. The Roman historian Suetonius records that the Roman Jews were rioting abort “Chrestus”. Peter would have left as well. In Acts 18:2 we read that Aquila and Prisca were in Corinth “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome”.

    In 54AD Claudius died, after which his edict was repealed, and the Jews returned to Rome. It is possible that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was written at this time to reconcile the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It seems that without the Jewish quarrelling about “Christus” the Gentile Christian number had grown. Thus when the Jewish Christians returned the church there was faced with new controversies that Paul’s letter sought to address.

    Peter is thus the “other man” when he says to the Romans “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation”.

    There are many references in the early writing of Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome.

    Finally another interesting point. The Liber Pontificalis says that Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church.

    These are the first three that succeeded Peter – Linus, then Anaclectus and then Clement.

    Most of this I have taken from the book “The Eternal City – Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity” by Taylor Marshall, and Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism.

    Of course you will take no notice of this but others reading might find it interesting.
     
  3. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    1,548
    53
    I get it. If any translation differs from the KJV it must be wrong.
    KJV fanatics! :eek:
     
  4. PGS11

    PGS11 New Member

    6
    0
    Peter said it because he loved the Lord and any thought of harm coming to Jesus hurt him- Jesus said "Get behind me satan" because what Peter proposed was not the Fathers will - Jesus used this moment to teach that it not our will but the fathers will that must be done. Not calling Peter satan.

    As for denying the Lord 3 times - the Lord also forgave him 3 times so Peter could forgive himself - Do you love me Peter? and Jesus said it 3 times.

    No Catholic is glorying in Peter thats complete bunk - thats your opinion. The Acts of the Apostles shows an authoritative church working guiding the faithful.
     
  5. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    318
    26
    No wonder the Catholic catechism hardly lines up with scripture with that perspective, but yet they will insist on key singular scripture out of context for their doctrines of enslaving the members to the Church.

    Your timeline is given out of quote box so the reader can read this.

    "Here is the timeline:
    Peter starts in Jerusalem. He goes to Antioch and is bishop of Antioch for several years.

    At Pentecost we know that there were Jews from Rome and it is likely that some of them took the gospel to Rome. But the Church there needed an apostle to found it properly. And that apostle was Peter. In AD 42 James was killed by Herod Agrippa, who also arrested Peter. But Peter was miraculously released and then it concludes: Then he departed and went to another place.

    Catholic tradition says “another place” was a code for Rome."

    That is an assumption from which ancient tradition may have based it on and thus without merit. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.

    "There is an ancient tradition that Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. Also the Liber Pontificalis records that Peter’s pontificate in Rome lasted for 25 years. As he was executed in 67 AD that ties in with the date of 42 AD.

    In Acts Peter is absent from Jerusalem from about 42 AD until 49 AD when he re-appears in Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem.

    Why? The answer is that in Rome in 49 AD there was much trouble in Rome and the Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Jerusalem. The Roman historian Suetonius records that the Roman Jews were rioting abort “Chrestus”. Peter would have left as well. In Acts 18:2 we read that Aquila and Prisca were in Corinth “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome”.

    In 54AD Claudius died, after which his edict was repealed, and the Jews returned to Rome. It is possible that Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was written at this time to reconcile the Jewish and Gentile Christians. It seems that without the Jewish quarrelling about “Christus” the Gentile Christian number had grown. Thus when the Jewish Christians returned the church there was faced with new controversies that Paul’s letter sought to address.

    Peter is thus the “other man” when he says to the Romans “thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation”. "

    Again, you are assuming and reading that verse wrong too. Amazing how scripture can be done away with when it does not suit you in order to favor Catholic tradition. You are definitely reading that verse with Catholic tradition's bifocles on. Continuing with your timeline presentation below.

    "There are many references in the early writing of Peter and Paul founding the Church in Rome."

    You mean early writing ABOUT Peter and Paul founding the Church at Rome. Those references found at this Catholic site below just had them citing Matthew 16 mostly rather than give any historical account.

    Early Christian history  as seen by the  Roman Catholic Church

    So basically, the early writings based on reference to Matthew 16 in applying it, established ancient tradition by matter of opinions. Continuing on...

    "Finally another interesting point. The Liber Pontificalis says that Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church.

    These are the first three that succeeded Peter – Linus, then Anaclectus and then Clement.

    Most of this I have taken from the book “The Eternal City – Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity” by Taylor Marshall, and Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism."

    Clement did not avoid the appearance of covetousness in his epistle to the Corinth. The dispute was the church at Corinth was not giving anything to the Church at Rome which Clement seems to place authority on them that they have to give; and thus accusing them of jealousy because Cleme nt was making all the churches do this in giving to the church at Rome.

    First Clement: Clement of Rome

    "1Clem 14:2
    For we shall bring upon us no common harm, but rather great peril, if
    we surrender ourselves recklessly to the purposes of men who launch
    out into strife and seditions, so as to estrange us from that which
    is right.
    "

    Paul had written that only a portion from the bounty was given to the support of the saints ministering abroad; jealousy has arisen when the church at Corinth found out that the Church at Rome was not collecting out of need, but from every church to the selfish gains of the church at Rome. Clement was trying to justify the giving to them by using verses about the ones that minister to them, and yet he was not there in person to apply that to himself as one that ministers to them, but sending collectors out for the treasury at the church at Rome. That was why they were jealous.

    Also the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is about having a heirarchy over a chain of churches.

    Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth

    Nicolaitanes as defined meaning "conquer of the laity" where in the doctrine is having a higher authority outside of the Word of God over each local church. So I understand why the church at Corinth was disagreeing with the Church at Rome.

    So.. from Clement onward, we can see how the Church at Rome went astray when all roads leads to Rome, and vying for the head bishop over all churches became a covetous position of governership that Jesus spoke against.

    Mark 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.43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

    Yes, I find it interesting on how Clement began the corruption at the Church at Rome where the gates of hades supposedly would not prevail against it.
     
  6. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    318
    26
    Sticks and stones.

    For those interested in reading the exchange between Mungo & myself, consider this below when comparing the modern Bibles against the KJV.

    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. KJV

    The KJV is giving the message about what Cephas means which is a stone.

    What you read next in those modern Bibles mentioned below. they are not giving the meaning of Cephas, but giving another name.

    John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Petera]">[a]). NIV
    Footnotes:
    1. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.
    The ESV and the NASB and the Douay Rheims American edition ( normally a Catholic Bible reference ) has the rendering of NIV.

    So you ask Jesus what the point of that message in John 1:42; to give another name for Cephas or to inform the reader what Cephas actually means?
     
  7. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    318
    26
    I do not believe Peter was Satan any more than believing Peter was the rock, but Peter was influenced by Satan enough for Jesus to tell Satan to get behind Him as in get out of Peter.

    Giving credit to someone else where it belongs to the Lord is how it comes across as exalting Peter above the Lord. By trying to exalt the Church at Rome, the Church at Rome is glorifying Peter so as to establish their authority over all christian churches.... which is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which God hates. Each local church were to have Jesus Christ as the Head of the church and thus the Word of God is the only authority and no outside earthy authority. Even the presbyter have gone astray.

    Like it or not, the churches are in trouble, and Revelation has never instructed any one to pay heed to the one true Church at Rome or to Peter, but to Jesus Christ as all invitations still points to Him for obtaining eternal life as He is our Saviour, and to Him as our Good Shepherd for help in living as His by abiding in His words as kept in the KJV; not to a church, not to a catechism, and not a pastor as all things should be proved by Him & by His words.

    We can only live this reconciled relationship thru Jesus Christ as He is the Bridegroom as we are to be the abiding bride of Christ by His grace & help.
     
  8. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    1,548
    53
    You ask "what the point of that message in John 1:42; to give another name for Cephas or to inform the reader what Cephas actually means?"

    Answer: It's both, because Petros is the name that Jesus gives Peter (Kepha) translated into Greek. And just as kepha means rock, so does petros mean rock.
     
  9. FHII

    FHII Well-Known Member

    2,148
    86
    There is absolutely no Biblical or historical account to support your claim. Romans 15 doesn't say or even suggest that Peter was there first. In fact, the book as a whole suggest he wasn't.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM
    JesusIsFaithful likes this.
  10. JesusIsFaithful

    JesusIsFaithful Active Member

    318
    26
    Kepha was inferred, because of the Chaldean origin but not actually referring. This was done by errant Biblical scholars, apparently with the mindset of Roman Catholicism.

    The actual Greek used for Peter's name is not the same Greek spelling as the Greek word for rock is, and since in the KJV, the apostle John went to the trouble in telling us what Cephas means which is a stone, I disregard all modern Bibles translations.

    And anti-KJVonlyists used to accuse the Roman Catholic Church of changing the words in the KJV Bible to suit their doctrines.

    I am not of the KJVonlyism because of other erroneous statements being defined as KJVOnlyism as well as it doling out judgment on believers using other Bibles. I know believers can use other Bibles to spread the Good News.

    I also know that they can correct some false teachings by modern Bibles BUT I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words because ALL modern Bibles have changed the meaning of His words that do not line up with the rest of the scripture in that modern Bible... like John 16:13 as opposing the errant translation of Romans 8:26-27 as found in all modern Bibles, except for the KJV that has the truth in John 16:13 lining up with Romans 8:26-27 that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for making His intercessions because His intercessions are unspakable as Another is needed by knowing the mind of the Spirit as He that searches our hearts ( Romans 8:27 referring to Hebrews 4:12-16 ) is the One giving the Spirit's unspeakable intercessions to God the Father which is in according to the will of God of there being only One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. ( 1 Timothy 2:5 )

    So that is why I rely only on the KJV; not because of KJVOlyism, but because there can be no lie of the truth in His words as Jesus has confirmed His words to me as kept by those who loved Him & His words whose source documents originated from Antioch where His disciples were first called christians;

    Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

    Modern Bibles's source documents originate from Alexandria where poetic licensing and gnosticism had been known to exists, and so if there were any doubts in His words to the actual meaning between modern Bibles and the KJV, I rely on the KJV only... thanks to Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd.
     
  11. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    1,310
    61
    So what. That doesn't mean Satanists are RUNNING the Vatican, which is what you implied. Vatican is a city/state, lots of room for wackos. Besides, since the Vatican is satans' #1 enemy, you can expect such sects to gravitate there and attack the Church in numerous ways. But they are not there by invitation.

    No, there is no "whole claim"" of Peter as the ROCK in one verse. Peter is leader and spokesman for all the apostles all over the NT.
     
  12. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    1,310
    61
    It doesn't matter who was in Rome first. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, the First Among Equals. Even if Peter got to Rome 20 years after Paul, Peter would still have primacy. "Disproving" the papacy by disproving Peter in Rome is a joke. His location has no bearing on his office.
    But Peter and Paul preached the same gospel, they were not competitors.
    A church cannot be established without a bishop.

    Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Ignatius Letter to the Romans, Ch 4​
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2017 at 11:08 PM
  13. kepha31

    kepha31 Well-Known Member

    1,310
    61
    Isaiah 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

    Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

    This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

    Isaiah 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

    Isaiah 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

    Isaiah 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

    Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

    Isaiah 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

    Isaiah 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

    Isaiah 22:23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

    Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

    Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

    Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

    Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

    Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

    Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

    Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

    Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.