Відео

What @carol said😊

I did read it, and covered it in the study. Nothing I say will change your mind, so I won't try. I didn't put this up so it could be argued, if is a fruitless endeavor to try.

It is so plain to see, if people take the time to look.

It is some mind blowing detail we get, for sure.

Hi! You bring up a good point. However, I think it's reasonable to expect that Jesus also spoke Hebrew (he read the OT scriptures), Greek and Latin. I am reminded that, while humans were the scribes of Scripture, the Holy Spirit was its author. It's pretty settled that the NT was written in Greek. There are places in Scripture, such as portions of Daniel, which were written in Aramaic while the rest was in Hebrew. So, while He spoke in Aramaic as an everyday language while He was here, the Holy Spirit moved those holy men of God to write the NT in Greek. Just a thought🙏

The record of the passage is Greek, which is what God used to convey the record. There would be option in the Greek to say it in a lesser way, if Peter were the foundation of some new institution, as in repeating Petros. In the places where Petra is used of an individual, including LXX, it always reflects Jesus and none other. Which is why Peter quotes the passage to reflect Jesus, as does Paul and not himself. Besides, there are plenty of other reasons how we know that Jesus is the foundation of the church and not a fallen man. He did not the authority in Jerusalem (Acts 15) or in the gentile church. James and Paul were those men and Paul even concedes no authority over himself, but God alone. If Peter were some over arching vicar then Paul would have considered himself subordinate to Peter. After Acts 10, compared to Paul, Peter is in a considerably lesser role in the church.

@@chrisquintanaoldpaththeolo6130 Thanks for your comments and they have the same sentiment that it was written in Greek. Some like to lean on this heavily and I would like to make a quick side note. The earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They’re all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can’t conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek. Yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof. Secondly, your reading of Matt 16 and differentiating two different words doesn’t fit well with the context. For example, when God changes names it’s for a significant reason, and with your reading you are saying Jesus changed Simon’s name just to minimize or diminish him and point out that he is an insignificant stone. The result is “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! You are an insignificant little pebble. Here are the keys to the kingdom of heaven!” Such an incongruous sequence of statements would have been not merely odd, but inexplicable. And thirdly, I think D.A Carson gives responses to your claims from your first paragraph and just gives insight to the thought, reason and a history of using two words in Greek. Carson says in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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." Carson also says in the -Zondervan NIV Bible Commentry. “The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”

@@daveevans3276 And we can find people who can argue the grammar all day long, can't we? I will avoid that, since it is fruitless. It is why I prefer to let the text settle the matter, internally. As I mentioned above, and will add this further, scripture is the best interpreter of scripture. Point 1. In every case where Petra is used of an individual, it always points to Jesus, without exception. (Matthew 7:24, 25, Romans 9:33, I Corinthians 10:4, I Peter 2:8) Point 2. If Peter was made pope, then there would need to be priests and a priesthood. Yet there is nothing in scripture giving instructions about a priesthood, nor its function. For the Old Testament priesthood the details and instructions have entire books dedicated to the topic, with minute detail. So it begs the question, if God wanted a priesthood, then why is there no such demand? We find no instruction and how-to manual for new priesthood, which is bound to fail, just like the last one, since it is man centered. In fact the word for priest exists in the New Testament, but always of the Old Testament one. Point 3. The most obvious one, since Jesus completed all that is needed, (Hebrews 9 and 10) why would a priesthood be needed? What we see in the RCC is a monolithic, top down structure, which has grown over time. The doctrine and theology also has become larger and more absurd over time as well, since there is no instruction given for their power and structure in scripture. This is precisely what we would expect in the absence of a mandate from God for the institution. When Jesus gave a church, He did not give us an institution, but an entity. If we look at the words of Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 and believe Jesus refers to Peter's statement about Jesus, that makes Jesus the Rock upon which the church is built, and the church entity has the keys, of which Peter would play a primary role, through Acts 10.

@@chrisquintanaoldpaththeolo6130 Thanks for responding. First, just some preliminary notes. It should be recognized that your position is not merely an argument against Peter as the rock, but an argument for one specific alternative rock, Jesus himself - not Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, the truth Peter has confessed, etc. Those who advocate for any of those other “rocks” gain no support by appealing to Jesus the foundation stone. Secondly, some like to quote 1 Cor 3:11. This verse calls Jesus the “foundation,” but you brought up 1 Peter 2:6. And in this verse it calls him “a cornerstone chosen and precious”- not a foundation, nor bedrock or solid rock, but a detached stone (Lithos) that has been cut and placed. For that matter, 1 Cor 3:11 also does not describe bedrock or solid rock, since Paul speaks of laying the foundation, i.e., a foundation of laid stones. Even so, 1 Cor 3 makes Jesus the whole foundation, while 1 Peter 2:6 merely makes him the cornerstone, part of a larger foundation. As for 1 Cor 10:4-a verse that actually uses petra - the “rock” that followed the Hebrews in the wilderness is not a foundational stone of any kind; nothing is built on it. We have seen that different images can have the same referent. But the reverse is also true: A single image can be used of different referents - and foundational imagery is applied in different ways in the New Testament. Most notably, Eph 2:20 repeats the image of Christ as cornerstone, but adds “the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” A variation on this image appears in Rev 21:14, where John speaks of “twelve foundations” bearing the names of the twelve apostles. Neither of these describes Jesus as the sole foundation, as per 1 Cor 3. In the case of Matt 16:18, moreover, Jesus explicitly gives himself a role other than foundation or cornerstone: He is the one building on the rock. While a single referent can have multiple images, the image of building on the rock is essentially one image, not two. To construe Jesus as saying “Upon me I will build” seems odd to say the least- particularly coming from those who claim that a “stone” and a “rock” can never be the same thing, but now have no trouble imagining a builder who is also a foundation building on himself! (Incidentally, note the contrast with 1 Cor 3, where Paul speaks of others building on the foundation of Jesus. Sometimes others build on Jesus; sometimes Jesus builds on others.) It should be noted here that Jesus does not actually speak here of a “foundation,” but only of building his church upon “this rock.” The intended image here may be foundational bedrock (as per the parable of the wise and foolish builders), but it could also be that “this rock” is not the entire foundation, but part of a larger foundation- one of a number of foundation-stones, perhaps, as in Eph 2:20 and Rev 21:14. One could argue, then, that just as Jesus here confers on Peter the power of binding and loosing, but later confers the same power on the company of the Twelve (Matt 18:18), so Jesus here speaks of building the church on Peter, but not in a sense that would exclude all of the apostles together forming the church’s foundation. In that case, the images in Matt16:18 and Eph 2:20 would be convergent, not disparate.

It is a joy to do, and always a blessing to read through it first, before I record it.