A challenge to 'christians' who doubt the inspiration of Scripture

[Mungo]

Jesus did say that to Peter - but Peter was most certainly NOT the rock on which the church was founded.

How could he be? Peter means a little stone. The 'rock' in this passage is the word for a gigantic boulder or some such.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and called Peter ‘Kephas’, which means a huge rock or boulder.

"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter) (Jn 1:42)

That is point of the word play in Mt 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter (Kephas), and on this rock (kephas) I will build my church,…”

We know the name Kephas (Cephas in Greek) stuck to Peter because Paul uses it several times

“and that he appeared to Kephas, then to the twelve.” (1Cor 15:5)
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas” (Gal 1:18)
“and when James and Kephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars” (Gal 2:9)

Moreover there is no need to try and improbably link it to Isaiah. There is a more immmediate connection.

Jesus and the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi (see vs 12) which is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit. At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face. Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

 

[Raeneske]

I doubt if there are many christians who have issues with "scripture". but I certainly have problems with a lot of the bible. Which part is scripture and which is not. Jesus only referred to the Torah, we assume because of this that is is all scripture, and so we end up with all this confusion. The disciples certainly would never of considered anything the wrote to be scripture, though they certainly where inspired many times, some times by God other times by satan,

Mar 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

So Christ gave us the Holy Spirit so we could be taught by Him instead of trying to figure it all out for ourselves.

In all His Love

Are you saying that not all of what is in the new Testament is inspired? And then did you use Scripture to say parts of Scripture weren't inspired?

 

[Angelina]

Again, it is the revelation rather than the man the Church of Christ is founded upon. The Church cannot be founded upon flesh and blood but Christ' blood alone who is the Son of our Father in heaven and redeemer of all those who believe in him by faith. The "rock" is a play on words given to Peter with whom the Father chose to reveal his Son. The "rock" is the revelation - not the man Peter!

Shalom!!!

 

[mjrhealth]

Amen angelina, but few can see that.

 

[Mungo]

Again, it is the revelation rather than the man the Church of Christ is founded upon. The Church cannot be founded upon flesh and blood but Christ' blood alone who is the Son of our Father in heaven and redeemer of all those who believe in him by faith.

Eph 2:20 says the Church is founded on the apsotl;es and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone.

The "rock" is a play on words given to Peter with whom the Father chose to reveal his Son. The "rock" is the revelation - not the man Peter!

Shalom!!!

The rock is Peter as Jesus' renaming of him shows and as I showed above.


You are in contradiction of scripture on both points

 

[Asyncritus]

Here are the facts:

The 2 words petros and petra are different, though they come from the same root.

Petros is a movable stone as in the sentence: 'leave no stone unturned' That is the word used of Peter in Mt 16.18. You are petros

Petra is a huge rock, cliff, boulder or similar.

The meanings and significances are totally different, and Jesus could not have meant that Peter was any kind of rock to build His church upon.

You say that the link to Isaiah is improbable. That cannot be correct because at least, we have: Lu 20:17 And 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?

Which stone was that? Peter? Totally unbelievable. This is Jesus Himself, not His disciple. I think you can see that.

Peter himself disavows the claim, 3 times in the following passage:

1Pe 2:6 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.
1Pe 2:7 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,
1Pe 2:8 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.

It shouldn't be too difficult to see that he is talking about Jesus, not himself. And if he himself thought so, who are we to say any different?

But to return to your improbability claim.

You must surely know that scripture is an incredibly allusive book, and there are allusions to other parts of scripture everywhere. I can't go into that in detail now, but suffer it to be so for a little while. Trust me on this one, and if you don't, look at the marginal references in your own Bible (all allusions of one sort or another), and you will get some idea of just how many there are. True.

The most important allusions are those where the exact same few words are used, and this is one of them as I pointed out above. Here it is again, and I'm sure that you are able to see the correctness of what I'm saying.

Isa 38.9 ¶ The writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick, and was recovered of his sickness:
10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of my years.

In Hebrew, the grave = hell = sheol

So when Jesus says: Mt 16:18 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.

He is referring to the two passages above.

Hezekiah had been sick unto death. He went to the gates of hell (=the grave), but without going through them.

Jesus on the other hand, went through the gates of hell (= the grave/ sheol) and returned, so His statement is perfectly accurate. The grave itself (=sheol/hell) itself could not prevail against Him:


Jesus spoke Aramaic and called Peter ‘Kephas’, which means a huge rock or boulder.

Jesus did not speak in Aramaic. That is a large piece of scholarly nonsense. There is no Aramaic version of the gospels in existence, and it is their wilful ignorance and unwillingness to accept what we have right here before us which makes them talk such arrant nonsense.

"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter) (Jn 1:42)

That is point of the word play in Mt 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter (Kephas), and on this rock (kephas) I will build my church,…”

If the word kephas is used in both cases (you are kephas and on this kephas I will build..), then there is no word play at all. It's exactly the same word. But you need to show good reason why you think that this was originally in Aramaic.

We know the name Kephas (Cephas in Greek) stuck to Peter because Paul uses it several times

“and that he appeared to Kephas, then to the twelve.” (1Cor 15:5)
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas” (Gal 1:18)
“and when James and Kephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars” (Gal 2:9)

This is correct, but does not establish that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Koine Greek was the language, much as English is the common language of modern times.

Moreover there is no need to try and improbably link it to Isaiah. There is a more immmediate connection.

Jesus and the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi (see vs 12) which is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit. At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face. Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

If this was the improbable connection He was making, then there would have been some indication of it in the text.

There is none, but significantly, the references to Isaiah are almost verbatim: gatesof the grave (=sheol/hell) in Isaiah is exactly parallelled by 'gates of hell' in Mt 16.18.

When we find such a treasure, we must seize it and make full use of it, mustn't we? Not attempt to gainsay or dilute the force of the statements being made.

 

[Mungo]

Here are the facts:

The 2 words petros and petra are different, though they come from the same root.

Petros is a movable stone as in the sentence: 'leave no stone unturned' That is the word used of Peter in My 16.18. You are petros

Petra is a huge rock, cliff, boulder or similar.

The meanings and significances are totally different, and Jesus could not have meant that Peter was any kind of rock to build His church upon.

You say that the link to Isaiah is improbable. That cannot be correct because at least, we have: Lu 20:17 And 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?

Which stone was that? Peter? Totally unbelievable. This is Jesus Himself, not His disciple. I think you can see that.

Peter himself disavows the claim, 3 times in the following passage:

1Pe 2:6 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.
1Pe 2:7 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,
1Pe 2:8 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.

It shouldn't be too difficult to see that he is talking about Jesus, not himself. And if he himself thought so, who are we to say any different?

But to return to your improbability claim.

You must surely know that scripture is an incredibly allusive book, and there are allusions to other parts of scripture everywhere. I can't go into that in detail now, but suffer it to be so for a little while. Trust me on this one, and if you don't, look at the marginal references in your own Bible, and you will get some idea of just how many there are.

The most important allusions are those where the exact same few words are used, and this is one of them as I pointed out above. Here it is again, and I'm sure that you are able to see the correctness of what I'm saying.

Isa 38.9 ¶ The writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick, and was recovered of his sickness:
10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of my years.

In Hebrew, the grave = hell = sheol

So when Jesus says: Mt 16:18 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.

He is referring to the two passages above.

Hezekiah had been sick unto death. He went to the gates of hell (=the grave), but without going through them.

Jesus on the other hand, went through the gates of hell (= the grave/ sheol) and returned, so His statement is perfectly accurate. The grave itself (=sheol/hell) itself could not prevail against Him:


Jesus spoke Aramaic and called Peter ‘Kephas’, which means a huge rock or boulder.

Jesus did not speak in Aramaic. That is a large piece of scholarly nonsense. There is no Aramaic version of the gospels in existence, and it is their wilful ignorance and unwillingness to accept what we have right here bfore us which makes them talk such nonsense.

"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter) (Jn 1:42)

That is point of the word play in Mt 16:18 “And I tell you, you are Peter (Kephas), and on this rock (kephas) I will build my church,…”

If the word kephas is used in both cases (you are kephas and on this kephas I will build..), then there is no word play at all. It's exactly the same word. But you need to show good reason why you think that this was originally in Aramaic.

We know the name Kephas (Cephas in Greek) stuck to Peter because Paul uses it several times

“and that he appeared to Kephas, then to the twelve.” (1Cor 15:5)
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas” (Gal 1:18)
“and when James and Kephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars” (Gal 2:9)

This is correct.

Moreover there is no need to try and improbably link it to Isaiah. There is a more immmediate connection.

Jesus and the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi (see vs 12) which is at the far north of Israel, a long way, probably 3 days walking from Capernaum. In Matthew’s gospel this incident is the only one reported at Caesarea Philippi so this exchange seems to have been the main purpose of his visit. At Caesarea Phillipi where there is a massive cliff face. Into this is built a shrine for the pagan God Pan (the original name for Caesarea Phillipi was Panias). This was the contrast the Jesus was making also.

If this was the improbable connection He was making, then there would have been some indication of it in the text. There is none, but significantly, the references to Isaiah are almost verbatim: gatesof the grave (=sheol/hell) in Isaiah is exactly parallelled by 'gates of hell' in Mt 16.18.

When we find such a treasure, we must seize it and make full use of it, mustn't we? Not attempt to gainsay or dilute the force of the statements being made.








Yes, ignore the connection that Matthew is clearly making when he says Jesus and the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi, seemingly for no other prupose that to make this point.

Ignore the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Kephas in Jn 1:42; a renaming always being significant in the Bible.

Ignore the fact that Kepha means a massive rock or boulder.

Igone the fact that Paul calls Peter Cephas in three places so Peter must have been known as Cephas quite commonly.


Incidentally petros and petra are not totally dissimilar. In Koina Greek there was no difference. There was some difference in Ancient Greek used in poetry. But by the time of Jesus any difference had gone.

Moreover the word used for stone in the NT is lithos (see Jn 19:13).

 

[Asyncritus]

Yes, ignore the connection that Matthew is clearly making when he says Jesus and the disciples had journeyed to Caesarea Philippi, seemingly for no other prupose that to make this point.

You cannot be serious. He travelled x miles just to make this point? Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense.

Ignore the importance of Jesus renaming Simon as Kephas in Jn 1:42; a renaming always being significant in the Bible.

I agree that renaming is important. But you forget that the renaming of Peter took place at the beginning of Jesus ministry, nowhere near to the time of Mt 16.18 - and therefore had nothing to do with the case you're trying to make

Several of the other disciples had nicknames or aliases: whether Jesus renamed them too is doubtful, but clearly the significance is questionable, and in making such a huge case as the catholics attempt to do, on such flimsy 'evidence' is a massive overstatement of a very weak case, and I'm sure you recognise that.

.Ignore the fact that Kepha means a massive rock or boulder.

Kepha may mean a massive rock, etc. But Jesus did not use that word here. Please don't put words, in fact languages into His mouth. That is just not permissible. Flimsy cases always have some wrinkle to fall back on.

Igone the fact that Paul calls Peter Cephas in three places so Peter must have been known as Cephas quite commonly.

Whether he was so called or not, has no bearing on the passage in question. Please don't depart from the issue.

Just as a matter of interest, my own middle name means 'the friend' in arabic, and I was called that for some time when I was younger. But that does not prove that I or my parents ever spoke arabic - we didn't. So the fact that Peter was called Cephas, which is/ may be an Aramaic word, seems to me to be a total irrelevancy. You cannot build such an enormous case on such flimsy foundations.

Incidentally petros and petra are not totally dissimilar. In Koina Greek there was no difference. There was some difference in Ancient Greek used in poetry. But by the time of Jesus any difference had gone.

This sound like more scholarly tripe. It probably is - so don't build on such flimsy, and in many cases nonsensical foundations.

Moreover the word used for stone in the NT is lithos (see Jn 19:13).

I should have pointed that out. But it is pretty obvious what he means, isn't it?

That Jesus is the rock on which the church is built! Not Peter. I repeat that Peter himself expressly claims that Jesus is the stone on which His church is built. Three times, no less, in 1 Pet 2. What is your reply to that hugely important point?

If Jesus was the rock (petra), then what is Peter's role in all this? A church cannot have two foundations - not the christian church at any rate.

 

[mjrhealth]

Mungo no matter how you try you cannot turn a lie into the truth.

Mat_21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Why do people go to church, because they wont go to God and have no revelation of there own.

In all His Love

 

[Angelina]

Eph 2:20 says the Church is founded on the apsotl;es and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone.

The rock is Peter as Jesus' renaming of him shows and as I showed above.


You are in contradiction of scripture on both points

Please read this scripture again....

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The above verse refers to God's household ie; salvation through Christ and not the Church....
verse 18 - is saying that through Jesus we have access to the Father through the Holy Spirit. Verse 19 - still referring to the Gentles; says that we are now fellow citizens with those who are called saints - verse 20, is a historical account of that citizenship, which was built on the apostles and the prophets, Jesus being the chief cornerstone.

Although we are accepted as coming from the outside regarding the promises given to Israel, we have been made one new man because of Christs redeeming work on the cross which is available to both parties. The pivotal point here is that Christ had made the two one new man through the cross... he being the chief cornerstone. Without Christ being the cornerstone, we [Gentile believers] would not have that access...

The above verse has nothing to do with our discussion re: Peter and the rock. The rock is the revelation given to Peter by Father God.

Let's be logical here - would God our Father, lay the foundations of Christ's church on a man who >
1. denied his Son three times <John 13:38
2. Cut off the servant of the high priests ear [and was rebuked for it by Jesus] < John 18:10.
3. Tried to disassociate himself with the Gentiles when he saw the Jewish leaders arriving [and he was rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy].<Galatians 2:11, 12, 13 ....

...or would he found his Church on Christ, the sinless lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world through his blood and the redeemer of all who believe in him by faith????? :huh: Hmmmm that's a tricky one!

 

[Mungo]

Then household of God is the Church

 

[mjrhealth]

Ecclesia, called out ones, Church a building where people go in. Those who belong to Jesus are His Ecclesia, being in "church" is not a requirement for being a part of His called out ones, neither does it make you one of His.

Facts they are there if you want to really want to find them, but I assume you like it the way it is.

In all His Love

 

[Mungo]

Ecclesia, called out ones, Church a building where people go in. Those who belong to Jesus are His Ecclesia, being in "church" is not a requirement for being a part of His called out ones, neither does it make you one of His.

Facts they are there if you want to really want to find them, but I assume you like it the way it is.

In all His Love

That would be nice and tidy but it's not the actual way we use the word Church.

We use it in both the sense of the actual building, and in the sense of the congregation.

So we refer to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church both in the sense of a particular building and in the sense of the totality of people belonging to that group.

In the Bible it is used for both particular congregations and for all Christians as in "And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things." (Acts 5:11).

 

[Angelina]

We can say then...that the Catholic church is founded upon Peter the man while Gentile believing Churches are founded upon the teachings of Paul whose ministry was to the Gentiles in Christ :)

 

[Mungo]

We can say then...that the Catholic church is founded upon Peter the man while Gentile believing Churches are founded upon the teachings of Paul whose ministry was to the Gentiles in Christ :)

If that remark was directed to me I cannot see how you get that from anything I said.

 

[Angelina]

From my post no:30
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19102-a-challenge-to-christians-who-doubt-the-inspiration-of-scripture/?p=210287

your reply was...

Then household of God is the Church

and then I said...

We can say then...that the Catholic church is founded upon Peter the man while Gentile believing Churches are founded upon the teachings of Paul whose ministry was to the Gentiles in Christ

:)

 

[Mungo]

From my post no:30 your reply was...



and then I said...

:)

Totally lost me how you get that. But never mind.

 

[Angelina]

:huh: ...seemed quite straight forward to me?

 

[teamventure]

I doubt if there are many christians who have issues with "scripture". but I certainly have problems with a lot of the bible. Which part is scripture and which is not. Jesus only referred to the Torah, we assume because of this that is is all scripture, and so we end up with all this confusion. The disciples certainly would never of considered anything the wrote to be scripture, though they certainly where inspired many times, some times by God other times by satan,

Mar 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

So Christ gave us the Holy Spirit so we could be taught by Him instead of trying to figure it all out for ourselves.

In all His Love

are you hostile to the Word of God? i'll quote afaithfulone4u who had something to say about hostility to the word and being antichrist:

Anti-Christ means Opposes-The Word. Christ is the Word and the Word is The Truth. When we test a spirit of a man, we speak scripture and see if the man does one of several things. If they openly accept to hear and feed upon the Word as if a hunger or thirst for it (TRUE CHRISTIAN) for the LOVE TRUTH.
OR
They argue that the Word of God is not even truth, or tell you to shut up, or gets angry at you for talking about the Word of God, avoids talking to you about the Word, FALLS ASLEEP or acts so bored out of their minds.... That is how you can tell if they have Christ living in their flesh Or NOT! For only by the Spirit can one say that Jesus is Lord of their life and MEAN IT. All others are faking it

so is that describing you mjrhealth?

 

[mjrhealth]

are you hostile to the Word of God? i'll quote afaithfulone4u who had something to say about hostility to the word and being antichrist:

Anti-Christ means Opposes-The Word. Christ is the Word and the Word is The Truth. When we test a spirit of a man, we speak scripture and see if the man does one of several things. If they openly accept to hear and feed upon the Word as if a hunger or thirst for it (TRUE CHRISTIAN) for the LOVE TRUTH.
OR
They argue that the Word of God is not even truth, or tell you to shut up, or gets angry at you for talking about the Word of God, avoids talking to you about the Word, FALLS ASLEEP or acts so bored out of their minds.... That is how you can tell if they have Christ living in their flesh Or NOT! For only by the Spirit can one say that Jesus is Lord of their life and MEAN IT. All others are faking it

so is that describing you mjrhealth?

I have no problems with the Word of God ( Jesus) its the bible that has being brought into question. And again since the word " scripture" does not actually mean the words come from God but are "assumed" to be Holy by men, that would make a car manual scripture to those who worship their cars. Jesus is the truth, the bible contains "some truth" but so does the "wicki" on the internet but that does noy make the wicki Gods word, just as it doesnt make the bilbe so. As according to " the bible" Jesus said,

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Yet people still do what He said they shouldnt and dont do as He said they should " the last bit".

Regards