Peter, the Rock, and the Keys

[michael_legna]

From this point on nothing you write adds anything to this  bible study, since your interpretation of Cephas is not biblical.

You don't have to interpret it for us since the bible interprets it for us itself, and here it is;

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

Petro you don't even seem to know the difference between interpretation and translation.  The KJV is not an interpretation it is a translation and one full of errors at that.  The fact that the KJV translates Petros as stone only shows that it was translated by biased Protestants who wanted to deny the Churches teaches or were to lazy to do the research to find the proper translation.

You being an RCC adherent no doubt use the NAB, translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All Ancient Sources, and believe it.

Actually I have 12 different translations at home I use to due research.  But you don't seem to know anything about Bible translations either.  The NAB is translated directly from the original languages, and from the best original texts available.  The KJV is not.  The KJV was translated from texts that Erasmus had in his personal collection and they were copies of originals of the day or even worse in some instances the books had been copied from Latin texts and then translated back into Greek before being translated into English.   So the KJV isn't even really based on original language texts.

But I do use the KJV when I argue with Protestants and it is sufficient to prove my points as long as one sees it as a fallible translation, since it is the work of men.  If you read the preface even the translators themselves never claimed it was perfect.

Unfortunately this false version of the teaching would have, one believe the explanation of 1 Peter 2:4, has Jesus Himself, being built on top of this Peter the "rock", which you say is the foundation to the church;

No 1 Peter 2:4 doesn't say anything about Christ being built on Peter or anything else for that matter.

but unfortunately their own marginal explanation does not agree with the teaching,

Why because it is false...

Note:

1 Pet 2
4  Come to him, a living stone rejected by men but approved nonetheless, and precious in God's eyes. 5  You to are living stones, built as a edifice of spirit into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  6  For the Scripture has it:

"see, I am laying a cornerstone in Zion an approved stone, and precious.  He who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." NAB

In the margins this is what the RCC claims;  

"2,4-6:  Come to him to Christ a living stone, rejected by men but approved by God because of his death and resurrection (v4). Beleievers joined by the Spirit (1 Cor 3,16) to Christ the cornerstone (v7), themselves becoming living stones and constitute the spiritual edifice of the Chritians community.  They are a holy priesthood whose function is to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (5f).  To unbelievers, Christ is an obstacle and a stumbling stone on which they are destined to fall (v60; cf Rom 11,11.  

You can see from this explanantion that the RCC understands from these verses that beleivers of which is one numbered who is called Peter the Stone, who is joined to Christ together with all other believers constituting the edifice, known as the Chruch.  It is clear from verse verse 7, that Peter is just another stone, and not the chief conerstone (the bedrock to the foundation).

The version of the teaching is not the same thing, but is Peter being the "rock" foundation on which Jesus together with other all other believer's being stones making up the edifice.  

Notice that even their teaching of the priesthood within the institution is not in accordance with their understanding of these verse 7, since the priesthood is grounded in Peters popehood, and not the Head of the Chruch (Col1:12-18) who is Christ, as taught by scripture which brings up the fact that according to the RCC not all believers are priests of God.

Jesus is the foundational ROCK on which His Church is being, built Peter is one of the stones, he makes this perfectly clear.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  Yes the Catholic Church accepts Christ as the head of the Church, but Matthew 16 is talking about the Church on earth, of which Peter was made the head.  Do you really think that if the error in logic and consistency in the Church's position was that glaring that someone prior to you wouldn't have already pointed it out and the RCC would have changed their position to cover it up?  Your theory is illogical.

[Lance]

If this is a sample of Bible Study, I think I will give Theology a miss.
This is more like ChristiansDevourEachOther than ChristiansUnite LOL

[ollie]

PETER'S CONFESSION OF FAITH
Peter's confession of faith is the same as that of every believer, and is thus the bedrock of our salvation (Acts 8:37).  

Jesus is talking about the Church and the rock it will be built on.  Jesus isn’t talking about the bedrock of our salvation.    

Acts 8:37 but it does not apply because it does not use the term rock anywhere.

Acts 8:37 reads 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Jesus is not referring to Peter’s faith when He says rock.  The grammar is all wrong for that interpretation.  He says - “thou art Peter and upon this rock” - what rock?  - well the subject of the sentence has to be the rock – Peter is the subject of the sentence.

But since we are doing a Bible study here lets go on to look at your other errors in analysis.

PETER THE "LITTLE" ROCK
Peter's original name, Simon Bar Jona (Simon son of Jona)  was changed by Christ to Cephas [Kephas or "little rock"]

Actually, Simon bar Jona means in Aramaic (grain of sand son of the dove).  This was changed by Jesus to Kephas, which in Aramaic means "rock", not “little rock” as your erroneously claim.  In Aramaic “little rock” is  kevna.  If Jesus had wanted to call Peter “little rock” He would have used that term but He didn’t.
 
Note that the whole play on words Jesus is using for emphasis is based on the idea that he changing Peter’s name to match his position.  From a grain of sand to a rock.  The contrast of the grain of sand being changed to a rock expresses the change that Christ is making in Peter as he makes him the head of the Church on earth.  It was Peter who Jesus told to feed his sheep three times for emphasis at the end of the Gospel of John.  Also note that Jesus never told the sheep to feed themselves.

God has only changed someone's name three times in the whole bible - twice in the OT - and once now with Peter in the NT (Cf. John 1:42). In the case of the OT instances, the position of Abraham and Jacob was elevated to Patriarch of the Nation Israel, just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT.

This foundation for us is the New Testament, which was constructed by the apostles and prophets.

Perhaps you could try to provide a verse to support the idea that the New Testament is the foundation.  I know you can’t though because the New Testament writings weren’t even considered, by those who would eventually write them, until after the fact.   But the foundation and the rock are two different things anyway so it really doesn’t matter that you got this wrong too.

Notice the contrast between "the foundation" and "the Chief Cornerstone". When Christ speaks of building our house upon the "rock" so that it can withstand the floods and storms of life, He explains that that means "His sayings" or the Word of God.

CHRIST THE BEDROCK FOUNDATION AND CHIEF CORNESTONE  

Once again these references to rock and cornerstone and foundation are throughout the scriptures and refer varyingly to the Prophets, Apostles, Jesus Christ and God the Father.  They do not all refer to the same thing so they cannot be contrasted or made to contradict each other as you are trying to do.

But if you have it right, the grammar required is almost comical.  You would have Christ saying “thou art Peter and upon this rock (He says thumping His own chest), I will build my Church”.  I am sorry the scriptures just don’t support this bizarre view of the event.

It is interesting to note here that the idea that the rock (that Moses struck so the Israelite could drink) followed the Israelites through the desert, is found nowhere in Old Testament scripture.  It comes from Rabbinic Tradition, so it seems even Paul relied on Tradition.

END PART 1

"just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT."


Ephesians 5:23.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 24.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 1:18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
 19.  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


 1 Peter 2:5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto 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,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Why do some of your uninspired statements seem to contradict those inspired of God?

Ollie

[michael_legna]

Why do some of your uninspired statements seem to contradict those inspired of God?

I am sorry I should have made it clear that I was refering to the Church on earth.  I did several times in several of my posts, but I did not do it everytime and I should have.  

The Catholic Church knows that Christ is the head of the Church.  But it also sees Christ tell Peter he was going to build His Church on Peter as it's earthly head.  So there is no disagreement between my statements and that of scripture.

I assumed everyone who knew we were discussing Matthew 16 knew that it is only about the Church on earth and who was to lead it once Christ ascended into heaven.  I should not have assumed that everyone understood that.

But to interpret the rock in Matthew 16 as Christ is to have a grammatical comedy of errors.  You have to have Jesus saying "thou art Peter" and then in the middle of His sentence change topics and say "and upon this rock" pointing to His own chest "I will build my church".  It is ridiculous to imagine such a scene.

[michael_legna]

If this is a sample of Bible Study, I think I will give Theology a miss.
This is more like ChristiansDevourEachOther than ChristiansUnite LOL

I too regret that it sometimes has to be this way, but Bible studies are not about getting a warm fuzzy.  They are about getting the truth by digging below the surface to make sure you understand what is really being said.  

If there were no need to interpret scripture as some have said there would be no need for Bible studies.  You would simply just read the text and all would be clear, but as you can see with all the varying opinions expressed on this forum that is not the case.

[Lance]

Well Bible Study is fairly clear to me michael_legna.  It's only the cults that get confused.  You see the Holy Spirit interprets, not man.  It's only when man lends a hand, confusion sets in.

 1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Lord has spoken.

[michael_legna]

Well Bible Study is fairly clear to me michael_legna.  It's only the cults that get confused.  You see the Holy Spirit interprets, not man.  It's only when man lends a hand, confusion sets in.

 1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Lord has spoken.

You may have a point.  It's true that there wasn't any confusion until men got involved around 500 years ago.  Until then the Church was pretty unified, not split into 40,000 factions, sects and cults as it is today.

[Petro]

From this point on nothing you write adds anything to this  bible study, since your interpretation of Cephas is not biblical.

You don't have to interpret it for us since the bible interprets it for us itself, and here it is;

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

Petro you don't even seem to know the difference between interpretation and translation.  The KJV is not an interpretation it is a translation and one full of errors at that.  The fact that the KJV translates Petros as stone only shows that it was translated by biased Protestants who wanted to deny the Churches teaches or were to lazy to do the research to find the proper translation.

michael,

YOU are Wrong again...

The KJV, uses the same Word "stone" that is in the Greek-English Interlinear.

And it has Interpreted the Aramaic word "Kephas" for us as a stone.

You need not add anything to it..

Petro

[michael_legna]

From this point on nothing you write adds anything to this  bible study, since your interpretation of Cephas is not biblical.

You don't have to interpret it for us since the bible interprets it for us itself, and here it is;

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

Petro you don't even seem to know the difference between interpretation and translation.  The KJV is not an interpretation it is a translation and one full of errors at that.  The fact that the KJV translates Petros as stone only shows that it was translated by biased Protestants who wanted to deny the Churches teaches or were to lazy to do the research to find the proper translation.

michael,

YOU are Wrong again...

The KJV, uses the same Word "stone" that is in the Greek-English Interlinear.

And it has Interpreted the Aramaic word "Kephas" for us as a stone.

You need not add anything to it..

Petro

A Bible can't interpret at all, only men can interpret and if men interpret as they translate the Bible it is called changing the Word of God.  

Which Greek InterLinear Bible are you using, obviously one biased toward Protestant theology rather than an independent scholarly one, because they got the translation wrong.  Kephas isn't even a Greek term so they should not have been translating Petros as they obviously resorted to, Kephas is Aramaic and in Aramaic it means rock not little stone.  But this is well known even in the Protestant world so legitimate scholars know to translate Petros properly as rock.

[Petro]

michael,

You are kicking agaist the pricks, say what you want, it is not going to change what is written.

Allow, me give the verse to you again;

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.

The NAB is the one that interprets this verse to mean what it wants it to mean, and that is the truth.

You are just wrong all the way around, on this one..

Petro

[michael_legna]

michael,

You are kicking agaist the pricks, say what you want, it is not going to change what is written.

Allow, me give the verse to you again;

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.

The NAB is the one that interprets this verse to mean what it wants it to mean, and that is the truth.

You are just wrong all the way around, on this one..

Petro

I see your mistake now, it is relying on the KJV as if it were infallible.  It makes two mistakes here, first it translates the Greek  hermenia (Strongs 2058/2059) which Strongs admits is best translated as "to translate" (interpretation being a secondary usage) clearly showing the purpose of the writer here was to focus on Peter's new name not what it might mean.  But even when other translations do interpret the term into english they generally use rock not stone, because the meaning of Kephas is that clear.

You keep forgetting Jesus wasn't speaking Greek.  So there was a need to translate the Aramaic Kephas (which means rock and not small stone) into Greek so it could be written in the New Testament.  The Greek Word they choose was the masculine form of the Greek word rock so it would be the closest possible translation and yet not be a feminine word refering to a masculine character.  This word is Petros thus coming up with the name Peter.  There is no attempt in this verse to do anything but to show his new name.

The proper translation of John 1:42 is thus 'He brought him to Jesus.  Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Kephas (which is translated Peter)."  

This is what is used in the NASB (a Protestant translation which clearly doesn't want to acknowledge Peter as the first Pope so wouldn't do this if they could avoid it)  They bent their prejudices to admit the honest translation - something the translators of the KJV could not bring themselves to do considering the force behind their translation being a Protestant King hoping to support his sovereignty as seperate from the Church in Rome.  

Similar translations are also found in the NIV and the RV, the ASV and the NRSV as well as the Catholic Bibles the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, also in the Complete Jewish Bible by David Sterns (a messianic Jew), the New English Bible, the Contemporary English Version, and the New Testament translation by William Barclay.  

Face it, modern independent scholarship shows the translation of this verse in the KJV to be biased and wrong and the understaning of the Church during its first 1500 years to be right.

[Sower]

michael_legna
A Bible can't interpret at all, only men can interpret and if men interpret as they translate the Bible it is called changing the Word of God.

Michael:

Do you believe that every word in Scripture is a "word of God"?And do you believe that when the Holy Spirit says "which is by interpretation" then that is not "men" interpreting but the Holy Ghost stating what He desires to state, and the human scribe (apostle or prophet) simple writing down what God gives by Divine inspiration?

Now, regarding John 1:42-43, the phrase "which is interpreted" is written down twice, and these are the words of the Holy Spirit [Greek Textus Receptus]: "He first finds his own brother Simon and says to him, We have found the Messias, WHICH IS BEING INTERPRETED the Christ. And he led him to Jesus.  And looking at him Jesus said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Kephas [Cephas] , WHICH IS INTERPRETED Petros [Stone]." So it is the Holy Spirit who interprets the Aramaic word with a Greek word. In other words, Simon bar-Jona becomes Simon the Stone.  

This is a far cry from CHRIST THE ROCK. Now when we come to 1 Cor. 10:4 here is what we read in the Greek: "...for they drank of a SPIRITUAL PETRA [Rock] following , and THE PETRA [Rock] was the Christ" so the KJV translates it" ...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ".

Do you see the difference between PETRA, which is like the rock of Gibraltar, and petros, which is like a pebble lying below it? That's how Peter saw himself in relation to the Lord, and that is what he teaches in his first epistle.

Michael, before you do any more Bible interpretation "YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN".

[michael_legna]

michael_legna
A Bible can't interpret at all, only men can interpret and if men interpret as they translate the Bible it is called changing the Word of God.

Do you believe that every word in Scripture is a "word of God"?

Yes I do, but the written word cannot interpret itself.  Look up the meaning of the word interpretation.  It means to 'conceive in the light of individual belief".  The written word is inanimate, it does not conceive of things or have a belief, that is what man does.

And do you believe that when the Holy Spirit says "which is by interpretation" then that is not "men" interpreting but the Holy Ghost stating what He desires to state, and the human scribe (apostle or prophet) simple writing down what God gives by Divine inspiration?

I have already shown that the Holy Spirit did not say what you are claiming it said.  The original text, which is the inspired form of scripture (not the KJV in English) has the Greek word hermeneia which when translated properly with no prejudice toward one doctrine or another is "to translate" not "interpereted" as the KJV translators did to support their preconceived notions of what doctrine should be.  

Now, regarding John 1:42-43, the phrase "which is interpreted" is written down twice, and these are the words of the Holy Spirit [Greek Textus Receptus]: "He first finds his own brother Simon and says to him, We have found the Messias, WHICH IS BEING INTERPRETED the Christ. And he led him to Jesus.  And looking at him Jesus said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Kephas [Cephas] , WHICH IS INTERPRETED Petros [Stone]." So it is the Holy Spirit who interprets the Aramaic word with a Greek word. In other words, Simon bar-Jona becomes Simon the Stone.  

The word used in both places is from the same Greek root and should be translated in both places as "translate"  not "interpret".  Just because the KJV is consistent in it's error does not mean it is not an error.

Do you see the difference between PETRA, which is like the rock of Gibraltar, and petros, which is like a pebble lying below it? That's how Peter saw himself in relation to the Lord, and that is what he teaches in his first epistle.

No one is trying to compare Peter to Christ, Peter was only His representative on earth and only because Christ established him as such.  The whole idea of making a comparison comes not from Catholics but from Protestants.  They feel that the term rock, foundation etc should be restricted to references to Christ, but the idea is not biblical.  Do a word search throughout the Bible for those terms and you will see they apply not only to Christ but to many others, not in the same way but the term is not exclusive to Christ.

You have to remember Christ spoke Aramaic, He called Simon Kephas meaning "rock" not kevan which is what He would have used is He wanted to call Simon "little stone".  Jesus never called Simon petros.  Petros appears in the New Testament only because of a limitation of the Greek language, in that it does not have a masculine term for rock.  The Greek word for rock is petra and it is feminine which would not do for a name for a man, so the Greek offers the best closest thing it has "Petros" which is translated Peter.  If you want to interpret, to get the meaning of what that name signifies you should go back to Christ's original words and that is where he uses Kephas and that is both translated and interpreted as "rock".

the Holy Spirit didn't interpret it translated.  It was the KJV translators that did the interpreting, erroneously at that, and added to their error by changing the word of God through their purposeful mistranslation.  If the KJV translators had been honest with themselves they would never have introduced this erroneous idea of scripture interpreting rather than translating.

[Petro]

The word used in both places is from the same Greek root and should be translated in both places as "translate"  not "interpret".  Just because the KJV is consistent in it's error does not mean it is not an error.

michael,

You sound like a parrot, the official RCC bible, confirms the KJV is true, or and it has been interpreted from the Latin V.

So, your teaching is full of holes....



Blessings,

Petro

[Lance]

Can't you see michael_legna that Catholics and Protestants will never agree on scripture interpretation ?  They are like chalk and cheese.  The Catholic repeats his church dogma and the obedient ones will not budge from it come what may.  The Protestant on the other hand really has no dogma to cling to and relies on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  One repeats his church dogma secondhand; the other gets his teaching direct from the third person of the Trinity.

Amen