Jesus is the Rock. It does not need any human leaders.
Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to Jesus? You are not making sense.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 – for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.
Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:
1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.
Matt. 16:18 – Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Matt. 16:18-19 – in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven
is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter –
- you are blessed,
- you are the rock on which I will build my Church,
- and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse
to the person of Peter: Blessed are
“you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to
“you,” and I tell
“you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give
“you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever
“you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven.
Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter,
not his confession of faith.
It did not even hit the ten toes until the reformation. Daniel is not talking about the Davidic kingdom. He is talking about the church. Jerusalem has not been established and will not be established until the Second Coming.
The Church is a continuation of the Davidic Kingdom. You hack them apart.
I did not run away. I said it was about Jesus Christ, not David. How can you say it has applied to Jerusalem in any of the last 2500 years? That would be a false prophecy.
I said no such thing. Please quote me instead of making things up. This makes rational discussion with you impossible.
I know there are verses about David. I was looking for a verse that said the church was to be an earthly kingdom to fulfill Daniel 2, that must have human leaders on earthly thrones.
Daniel 7:9-12
9 “As I looked,
“
thrones were set in place, (plural)
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.(singular)
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth: In the age when all things are renewed, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious
throne, (after the Ascension) you who have followed me will also sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The Protestant Revolt has no thrones. It replaced seats of authority with the unhistorical unworkable unbiblical "Bible alone" theology that Luther invented because he lost a debate and was angry with the pope. Plus he was mentally ill.
Jerusalem is not a mountain that filled the whole earth, not did it send an army that destroyed the ten toe kingdoms. Babylon as the world and nations is the last thing destroyed in the final harvest of the earth. This happens before the Davidic kingdom can even start.
None of this has anything to do with post #326 that you keep ignoring.
Daniel 2:34-35 ,
Jeremiah 33:17 and Isaiah 22 are harmonious, but Jeremiah is a false prophet according to you.
Protestantism rejects any monarchical sense of the New Davidic Kingdom, the Church, that you are trying to defend with a false interpretation of Daniel 2.
