Does interpreting the Bible this way make it impossible to be Protestant or Orthodox? To me, it sounds impossible to be a member of the Church Jesus started unless you're united to Peter.
I appreciate the discussion and how many have the charism to investigate things, in this case scripture, with so much discipline and care. Its necessary and I sincerely admire the effort. Personally I've always been more persuaded by ideas and their implications. In general the protestant relationship to scripture always struck me as somewhat tedious and legalistic. Not saying wrong, but to my way of thinking missing the general idea and implication of those ideas. Again, I'm not saying the latter is unimportant, certainly one needs to know what was said to discern the meaning, just that we can become too bogged down in the details and miss the point. I read the scriptures and can say with certainty Christ did not leave behind a bible or a printing press for that matter to mass produce one. I recognize that those would come later, and am not denying their divine origin. I'm simply stating a fact. That for hundreds of years no resource currently used as the basis of the faith was available and much longer for it to have been widely available. Yet I think we can all agree that Christ did not intend for His Church to end with his ascension. Or that the Church he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against couldn't even survive that ascension or the death of the apostles. What He did leave us from the moment He ascended was a Church. I think its unprofitable to argue semantics on what each of us think a Church means. It misses the point. He left us the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced in scripture, to spread His message and build His "Church." We know with certainty that they didn't just come in, talk about Christ, then leave those converts behind to work it out for themselves. They trained and appointed others, and authorized them in various roles to teach the faith and make certain people were instructed properly. These inarguably were the first priests, bishops etc and were trained by the apostles for that role. Even the word Catholic was recorded by Ignatius within decades of Christ's ascension, roughly 70 years. And we know he was a disciple of the original, likely John. We know what he asserted was necessary for someone to be a Christian, the bare minimum. Which is 1) Baptism, 2) belonging to a "church" of apostolic succession, 3) Belief in the real presence of the Eucharist. Again, the bare minimum to call yourself Christian. To be protestant means not only that Christ was so incompetent or unconcerned that He gave little thought to all the souls who would be born and die before Luther's "inspiration, but that an inarguably troubled man of somewhat limited intellect (not stupid, just not a profound unmatched thinker) could do what Christ couldn't. Create a theological framework that surpassed at least in time what Christ Himself did. Or conversely, that its all bs and the actual Church of Christ was present all along.
@@Spiritof76Catholic I'm completely baffled as to how that could be your takeaway from what I said? Did you even read it before responding? Hint it was a defense of, not a rejection of, the Catholic church
I am a protestant. I believe you are correct that Peter is the rock, and upon him was built the kingdom of God. Him and others, but he was the first, both to declare the truth about Jesus and also to preach the Good News. He was the rock. But there is no sucession here. Just as the church was built on the prophets but we don't have prophet sucession, so with the apostles. They founded the Church, and are still foundational in the same way the OT prophets are, through the revelation they gave, Scripture, which is the sole infallible rule for the Church. Do you think a person is united with Peter by following Scripture, or by following a pope who presently spouts blasphemy?
@@thomasfryxelius5526 Your premise seems flawed. It assumed Christ intended for His Church to end shortly after His death. Why would you make such an assumption. Especially given His own statements that it would last to the end of the age, and hell would not prevail against it. Christ Himself says to bring issues to His Church. How would that be possible if His Church was to end. And why would He allow His apostles to appoint others to follow them? Were they not aware of the expiration? Prophets existed to reveal God's Will. The apostles were appointed to spread God's word delivered through Christ expressed and revealed already through Christ. He clearly intended them to build His Church. Even the bible you use was only possible because of the Church He built through them. It was the Church who not only compiled it, but preserved and determined what scriptures were valid or invalid, and which to compile.
If you understand the Greek, Matthew utilizes the second person singular throughout the passage in reference to Christ speaking to Peter in the known written account. Thus, Christ was speaking only to Peter. When this was revealed to me while studying to become a Protestant Pastor, in learning the proper Greek, it astounded me how far the Protestant movement has gone. Many Protestants misinterpret this passage. There were many things that prevented me from entering the Catholic Church. Though the Papacy was not one of them. I entered the Church in 2023.
Also remember that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter/Rock the moment he met him and that’s significant. See 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 Peter ).
Thank you Brother! You have the same explanation as the other apologists here in the Philippines. Surely, Catholicism embraces the oneness of the Church's teachings.
If Peter is not the "rock" of Christ's Church, then why did Christ give him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock, and the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter and assigned to the college of apostles united to its head ?
Paul calls Peter Cephas many times. The passage language makes it clear he is calling Peter the rock anyway. It reminds me of cirque du Soleil when people try to get around that. Also, I couldn't agree more that many things are not either or but both and. It's always so odd when a Protestant is so sure of their interpretation. It's a constant flow of don't trust man trust the Bible but they really mean their own interpretation.
@@ThatGuy-nr5spwhen you read it in its proper context, you would realize that it places more emphasis on Peter's confession because Jesus said that he would build His church on the rock right after Peter confessed who Jesus is. You could make the argument that Peter is called the rock for his role and confession (with more emphasis on his confession) that are foundational in the early church it is the confessing Peter that the church is built upon not Peter as an individual. but nevertheless it's not an argument for the papal office
The rock is most definitely not Christ. Why are they adding to or changing scripture? Why is any Catholic even agreeing with it? The Church is built by Christ, he is the builder. He has all authority, just like a builder does. St. Paul gives separate imagery. Without Christ, the cornerstone, the Church would fall apart. Without a builder, there is no Church.
I also think that even if Peter is named "pebble" (petros), Jesus would be making the point that even though you are a "small, weak, insignificant rock (who denied me three times), something great will be built atop it."
What koine Greek scholar, other than those that would be self serving, would admit that the Greek for Peter, Petros, is a masculine form for a small stone, would then turn around and call him petra, the feminine form for a large rock/cornerstone? Got milk?
the plain reading of matthew 16 identifies peter as the rock. jesus designates peter as the rock. the tradition of the church and the saints identify peter as the rock upon which the cornerstone, which is christ, will be laid to build the church. jesus also uses his parable of the wise man who builds his house upon a rock to drive the point. jesus identifies himself as the stone the builders rejected.
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. Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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. Jesus here is focused on Peter's response to His question. What is the foundational rock of Christianity? Peter's response, that Jesus Christ Is the Son of the living God.
Can you show me in the NT where any of the Apostles are called "priests"? That office was given and taken permanently by Christ on His death, resurrection and ascension. Try reading Hebrews in its entirety. Before any of you try to back up your claim, let me answer you before hand, "Where does it say that?"
@DashRiprock-m3b At first, there were only bishops (Apostles and their successors). Soon, bishops appointed priests as assistants for religious matters and deacons for secular matters.
@@DashRiprock-m3bits literally said that we have a priesthood in that epistle, this presupposes that they worship liturgically and that there is an existing ecclesiastical structure and hierarchy (bishops, deacons, priests)
@@fantasia55 Again, show me in scripture where the Apostles OR the independent church bishops/elders/overseers all over Asia Minor ordained "priests." Ignorance is not a blessing, fantasia.
@@presupping4eva Let me ask again, the word priest is never used in reference to the Christian church elders. It is used in reference to the Jewish elders and to Jesus Himself. So, point it out to me where is it used in reference to Christian elders?
the cornerstone is the FIRST stone laid in the construction of a FOUNDATION, all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, and will determine the POSITION of the entire structure. that is why the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church. christ, the chief cornerstone, laid the foundation of the apostles doctrine, which was revealed to them and to all by the holy spirit of God, not by flesh and blood. faith comes by hearing the word of God. God causes the growth. peter, a rock, was first to preach the gospel to the jews, and also first sent to the gentiles with the same message, laying the foundation of christ, upon which christ's church is built. christ is the rock, peter is a rock, among all the other apostles and prophets who speak the Word of God. a rock, part of the structure is not head. christ is head, all authority in heaven and earth given to him. the apostles were under his authority, subject to christ, as are all men. and we, as peter wrote, are living stones, part of the whole structure, held together by christ. peter was bold, outspoken and used by God to be first to speak the gospel, giving boldness to all the other living stones to go about preaching christ to the whole world. all things being conformed to the apostles doctrine. they received from jesus the authority to preach the gospel upon receiving power from the holy spirit. the spirit too is the rock upon which christ is building his church. *daniel 2*--a stone did not come down from heaven, and it did not strike the statue on the head but in the feet, causing the whole structure to crumble into dust and was blown away by the wind. the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. it did not settle in rome. peter was head of nothing. christ is still head of all things to the church. gifts of the spirit are given to each for the edification of the members. jesus put an end to the priesthood, as was known in judaism. no such resemblance in the new covenant. we, the whole body of christ, are a royal priesthood, offering the sacrifice of praise, and good deeds to please God, serving one another in love.
With enough creativity and mental gymnastics, anyone can make the Bible say anything they want. If you want to know the true teachings of Christ, you would do well to learn about the Apostolic Fathers. If you think the Bible says one thing, and the guys who learned Christianity from the Apostles say it says something else.... you're probably wrong.
CHRIST is the Only Cornerstone. HE is Head of HIS CHURCH. Peter was an apostle and Elder in the CHURCH but nowhere does it teach he Peter is head Elder. Paul an Apostle wrote about Elders in 1 Timothy and Titus about qualifications of Elders plural and these Elders oversee each congregation and have no again no authority over any other Congregation. Unfortunately after Apostles died Men started perverting GOD'S Teaching and one of the big ones was leadership which led to Catholic faith and leadership and the Pope. This is facts backed up by going against scripture and history recording how this leadership continued to Spiral away from GOD'S direction of Leadership. In CHRIST Alone
Actually, Jesus Christ didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic. So He didn’t actually call Simon Little Rock, He called Him rock. The fact that Jesus Christ renamed Simon to Peter is enough to justify Peter’s primacy among the apostles btw. Just as God had renamed Abram to Abraham in the old covenant.
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp God changed Paul’s name? Where’s that in scripture? Saul (great one) changed His own name to Paul (little one). Also, the promises associated with the new covenant were given to Peter not Paul. Paul came after the new covent was already established. Abraham received the old covenant, which was to him, the believer and his offspring, marked by circumcision. Peter received the new covenant, which was to all believers and their offspring, marked by baptism. 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." Acts 2:38-39
@@frekigeri4317 Ok yes I was wrong about Paul. But in Matthew 28 he told all the apostles to make disciples and to baptize not just Peter. Also I don’t believe they are not the same if a baby gets circumcised today any baby does that make him a Jew and part of Abraham covenant. Also it’s not just the church who can baptize I believe, any one can as long as the trinitarian formula is used. Correct.
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp all the apostles making disciples does not disprove the primacy of Peter or the fact that Peter was the principal recipient of the promises of the new covenant.
Does interpreting the Bible this way make it impossible to be Protestant or Orthodox? To me, it sounds impossible to be a member of the Church Jesus started unless you're united to Peter.
I appreciate the discussion and how many have the charism to investigate things, in this case scripture, with so much discipline and care. Its necessary and I sincerely admire the effort.
Personally I've always been more persuaded by ideas and their implications. In general the protestant relationship to scripture always struck me as somewhat tedious and legalistic. Not saying wrong, but to my way of thinking missing the general idea and implication of those ideas. Again, I'm not saying the latter is unimportant, certainly one needs to know what was said to discern the meaning, just that we can become too bogged down in the details and miss the point.
I read the scriptures and can say with certainty Christ did not leave behind a bible or a printing press for that matter to mass produce one. I recognize that those would come later, and am not denying their divine origin. I'm simply stating a fact. That for hundreds of years no resource currently used as the basis of the faith was available and much longer for it to have been widely available. Yet I think we can all agree that Christ did not intend for His Church to end with his ascension. Or that the Church he promised the gates of hell would not prevail against couldn't even survive that ascension or the death of the apostles.
What He did leave us from the moment He ascended was a Church. I think its unprofitable to argue semantics on what each of us think a Church means. It misses the point. He left us the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced in scripture, to spread His message and build His "Church." We know with certainty that they didn't just come in, talk about Christ, then leave those converts behind to work it out for themselves. They trained and appointed others, and authorized them in various roles to teach the faith and make certain people were instructed properly. These inarguably were the first priests, bishops etc and were trained by the apostles for that role. Even the word Catholic was recorded by Ignatius within decades of Christ's ascension, roughly 70 years. And we know he was a disciple of the original, likely John. We know what he asserted was necessary for someone to be a Christian, the bare minimum. Which is 1) Baptism, 2) belonging to a "church" of apostolic succession, 3) Belief in the real presence of the Eucharist. Again, the bare minimum to call yourself Christian.
To be protestant means not only that Christ was so incompetent or unconcerned that He gave little thought to all the souls who would be born and die before Luther's "inspiration, but that an inarguably troubled man of somewhat limited intellect (not stupid, just not a profound unmatched thinker) could do what Christ couldn't. Create a theological framework that surpassed at least in time what Christ Himself did. Or conversely, that its all bs and the actual Church of Christ was present all along.
@@arthurgrey8967That’s a long way of saying you disagree with Jesus and his body and bride the Catholic Church.
@@Spiritof76Catholic I'm completely baffled as to how that could be your takeaway from what I said? Did you even read it before responding?
Hint it was a defense of, not a rejection of, the Catholic church
I am a protestant. I believe you are correct that Peter is the rock, and upon him was built the kingdom of God. Him and others, but he was the first, both to declare the truth about Jesus and also to preach the Good News. He was the rock.
But there is no sucession here. Just as the church was built on the prophets but we don't have prophet sucession, so with the apostles.
They founded the Church, and are still foundational in the same way the OT prophets are, through the revelation they gave, Scripture, which is the sole infallible rule for the Church.
Do you think a person is united with Peter by following Scripture, or by following a pope who presently spouts blasphemy?
@@thomasfryxelius5526 Your premise seems flawed. It assumed Christ intended for His Church to end shortly after His death. Why would you make such an assumption. Especially given His own statements that it would last to the end of the age, and hell would not prevail against it. Christ Himself says to bring issues to His Church. How would that be possible if His Church was to end. And why would He allow His apostles to appoint others to follow them? Were they not aware of the expiration? Prophets existed to reveal God's Will. The apostles were appointed to spread God's word delivered through Christ expressed and revealed already through Christ. He clearly intended them to build His Church. Even the bible you use was only possible because of the Church He built through them. It was the Church who not only compiled it, but preserved and determined what scriptures were valid or invalid, and which to compile.
If you understand the Greek, Matthew utilizes the second person singular throughout the passage in reference to Christ speaking to Peter in the known written account. Thus, Christ was speaking only to Peter. When this was revealed to me while studying to become a Protestant Pastor, in learning the proper Greek, it astounded me how far the Protestant movement has gone. Many Protestants misinterpret this passage.
There were many things that prevented me from entering the Catholic Church. Though the Papacy was not one of them.
I entered the Church in 2023.
Glory to Jesus Christ!! :) God bless you.
Welcome home! I bet you’d be a great catechist in light of your background. Peace
@@mikelopez8564 That's the plan, Lord willing.
Pax
Are you a koine Greek scholar?
@@DashRiprock-m3b I am proficient enough to understand it.
Thanks for asking.
Well done brother on the recent discussion with Craig Truglia. Keep proclaiming Catholic Truth in charity to our orthodox brethren.
Thank you :) It was my first video of that type so I hope I did well enough!
Also remember that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter/Rock the moment he met him and that’s significant. See 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 Peter ).
Good point!!
Thank you Cameron. Yes, your response was both charitable, focused and thorough ❣
Thank you Brother! You have the same explanation as the other apologists here in the Philippines. Surely, Catholicism embraces the oneness of the Church's teachings.
God bless you!
Words well spoken, Cameron. Thanks again….praying for you and your family.
God bless you!
Thank you for your prayers 😁
If Peter is not the "rock" of Christ's Church, then why did Christ give him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock, and the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter and assigned to the college of apostles united to its head ?
Thank you for the great work you do!
God bless you 😁
All glory to Jesus Christ.
Nicely said, Cameron!!
your videos have a good content and keep it up. God can use any one from anywhere to spread the word of God.
Yep he sure is and upon that rock Jesus built His church!
Paul calls Peter Cephas many times. The passage language makes it clear he is calling Peter the rock anyway. It reminds me of cirque du Soleil when people try to get around that. Also, I couldn't agree more that many things are not either or but both and. It's always so odd when a Protestant is so sure of their interpretation. It's a constant flow of don't trust man trust the Bible but they really mean their own interpretation.
Well said :)
please tell me how is the church of Christ built on Peter . I hear this said all the time , but how is the church built on Peter?
What about the church fathers who would argue against your reading of the text?
@@ThatGuy-nr5spwhen you read it in its proper context, you would realize that it places more emphasis on Peter's confession because Jesus said that he would build His church on the rock right after Peter confessed who Jesus is. You could make the argument that Peter is called the rock for his role and confession (with more emphasis on his confession) that are foundational in the early church it is the confessing Peter that the church is built upon not Peter as an individual. but nevertheless it's not an argument for the papal office
@@rayenamarir5764 I agree.
The rock is most definitely not Christ. Why are they adding to or changing scripture? Why is any Catholic even agreeing with it?
The Church is built by Christ, he is the builder. He has all authority, just like a builder does. St. Paul gives separate imagery. Without Christ, the cornerstone, the Church would fall apart. Without a builder, there is no Church.
Thanks for the comment 😄
Did you watch the video? Address that exactly.
Shhhhhh, Double. We don't want to give it away.
One other thing Ephesus was more involved with early CHURCH History than Rome.
I also think that even if Peter is named "pebble" (petros), Jesus would be making the point that even though you are a "small, weak, insignificant rock (who denied me three times), something great will be built atop it."
No one cares what you "think". If you can't give facts, your opinion is useless.
@@DashRiprock-m3bit's not just their opinion what he said is supported by the church fathers
@@rayenamarir5764 Again, a comment made unsubstantiated. You can BS the naive all you want but I don't fall for it.
@@DashRiprock-m3b but you said it is their opinion? Which is also unsubstantiated comment. You could have asked for an evidence instead
@@DashRiprock-m3b Well, this is the ridiculousness of the Protestant claims... of Petros and Petra.
I also heard Petros being singular and petra being plural 🤣🤣
No truth to that. But the word petra is feminine meaning a large rock/cornerstone. Now, go read your bible and see who or what that cornerstone is.
Protestant arguments are weak. Even the Orthodox arguments dance around the verse
What koine Greek scholar, other than those that would be self serving, would admit that the Greek for Peter, Petros, is a masculine form for a small stone, would then turn around and call him petra, the feminine form for a large rock/cornerstone? Got milk?
Nice lol
the plain reading of matthew 16 identifies peter as the rock. jesus designates peter as the rock. the tradition of the church and the saints identify peter as the rock upon which the cornerstone, which is christ, will be laid to build the church. jesus also uses his parable of the wise man who builds his house upon a rock to drive the point. jesus identifies himself as the stone the builders rejected.
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.
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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.
Jesus here is focused on Peter's response to His question.
What is the foundational rock of Christianity? Peter's response, that Jesus Christ Is the Son of the living God.
Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox priesthood and sacraments, so best to direct your outreach toward Protestants.
Can you show me in the NT where any of the Apostles are called "priests"? That office was given and taken permanently by Christ on His death, resurrection and ascension. Try reading Hebrews in its entirety. Before any of you try to back up your claim, let me answer you before hand, "Where does it say that?"
@DashRiprock-m3b At first, there were only bishops (Apostles and their successors). Soon, bishops appointed priests as assistants for religious matters and deacons for secular matters.
@@DashRiprock-m3bits literally said that we have a priesthood in that epistle, this presupposes that they worship liturgically and that there is an existing ecclesiastical structure and hierarchy (bishops, deacons, priests)
@@fantasia55 Again, show me in scripture where the Apostles OR the independent church bishops/elders/overseers all over Asia Minor ordained "priests." Ignorance is not a blessing, fantasia.
@@presupping4eva Let me ask again, the word priest is never used in reference to the Christian church elders. It is used in reference to the Jewish elders and to Jesus Himself. So, point it out to me where is it used in reference to Christian elders?
the cornerstone is the FIRST stone laid in the construction of a FOUNDATION, all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, and will determine the POSITION of the entire structure. that is why the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church. christ, the chief cornerstone, laid the foundation of the apostles doctrine, which was revealed to them and to all by the holy spirit of God, not by flesh and blood. faith comes by hearing the word of God. God causes the growth.
peter, a rock, was first to preach the gospel to the jews, and also first sent to the gentiles with the same message, laying the foundation of christ, upon which christ's church is built. christ is the rock, peter is a rock, among all the other apostles and prophets who speak the Word of God. a rock, part of the structure is not head. christ is head, all authority in heaven and earth given to him. the apostles were under his authority, subject to christ, as are all men. and we, as peter wrote, are living stones, part of the whole structure, held together by christ. peter was bold, outspoken and used by God to be first to speak the gospel, giving boldness to all the other living stones to go about preaching christ to the whole world. all things being conformed to the apostles doctrine. they received from jesus the authority to preach the gospel upon receiving power from the holy spirit. the spirit too is the rock upon which christ is building his church.
*daniel 2*--a stone did not come down from heaven, and it did not strike the statue on the head but in the feet, causing the whole structure to crumble into dust and was blown away by the wind. the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. it did not settle in rome. peter was head of nothing. christ is still head of all things to the church. gifts of the spirit are given to each for the edification of the members.
jesus put an end to the priesthood, as was known in judaism. no such resemblance in the new covenant. we, the whole body of christ, are a royal priesthood, offering the sacrifice of praise, and good deeds to please God, serving one another in love.
With enough creativity and mental gymnastics, anyone can make the Bible say anything they want. If you want to know the true teachings of Christ, you would do well to learn about the Apostolic Fathers. If you think the Bible says one thing, and the guys who learned Christianity from the Apostles say it says something else.... you're probably wrong.
CHRIST is the Only Cornerstone. HE is Head of HIS CHURCH. Peter was an apostle and Elder in the CHURCH but nowhere does it teach he Peter is head Elder. Paul an Apostle wrote about Elders in 1 Timothy and Titus about qualifications of Elders plural and these Elders oversee each congregation and have no again no authority over any other Congregation. Unfortunately after Apostles died Men started perverting GOD'S Teaching and one of the big ones was leadership which led to Catholic faith and leadership and the Pope. This is facts backed up by going against scripture and history recording how this leadership continued to Spiral away from GOD'S direction of Leadership. In CHRIST Alone
I love how you Romans can’t read just a few verses more when Yeshua gives the same title to all the disciples and calls Peter satan!
Yeshua said that Peter is Petros, which means small stone. And on this Petra, meaning large rock, I will build my church!
Actually, Jesus Christ didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic. So He didn’t actually call Simon Little Rock, He called Him rock.
The fact that Jesus Christ renamed Simon to Peter is enough to justify Peter’s primacy among the apostles btw. Just as God had renamed Abram to Abraham in the old covenant.
@@frekigeri4317 He change Paul’s name to , so did Paul have primacy over the other apostles.
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp God changed Paul’s name? Where’s that in scripture? Saul (great one) changed His own name to Paul (little one). Also, the promises associated with the new covenant were given to Peter not Paul. Paul came after the new covent was already established.
Abraham received the old covenant, which was to him, the believer and his offspring, marked by circumcision.
Peter received the new covenant, which was to all believers and their offspring, marked by baptism.
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
Acts 2:38-39
@@frekigeri4317 Ok yes I was wrong about Paul.
But in Matthew 28 he told all the apostles to make disciples and to baptize not just Peter.
Also I don’t believe they are not the same if a baby gets circumcised today any baby does that make him a Jew and part of Abraham covenant.
Also it’s not just the church who can baptize I believe, any one can as long as the trinitarian formula is used. Correct.
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp all the apostles making disciples does not disprove the primacy of Peter or the fact that Peter was the principal recipient of the promises of the new covenant.