On this rock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

About the words of Jesus to Peter about building the church we arrive to the discuss about the validity of bible.
Mouhammed pbuh wasnt mistaken, for sure following the words of God is same following words of prophets including Jesus pbuh, Mouhammed pbuh didnt talk about people who follow words of Jesus pbuh but about following words of preists, Jesus wasnt preist Jesus is the only one who must be followed not the words of people came after Jesus, people who forbid what is allowed and allow what is forbidden, thats what prophet meant, and thats true no?
About insulting Paul and Peter, go back to my previous post and wont see any insult for them, i posted Verses and didnt add any word describing them i described them with same words Jesus pbuh did. Go back to bible and you will see Paul calling Jesus "accursed", for me its insulting for my prophet, and if you want i can paste alot of insults written about Jesus in bible, that thing disturb me but as i said i dont shoot i liike to discuss with evidences.

---

Now, my friend, I have a question. In no place have I ever insulted the Qu'ran, or called any Muslim names. In fact, someone sent me a rather beautiful story of an Old Muslim man and his grandson who lived in Kentucky. The grandson wished to imitated his grandfather in all things, but found reading the Qu'ran difficult, as he often could not understand or forgot what he read. So he thought he was wasting time. The grandfather used the coal basket and fetching water from the river to demonstrate that this seemingly useless chore cleaned the basket without and within. And so does reading the Holy Writings. I used the story in my Sunday sermon. Why, if I can find beauty and points of agreement must you insult my Bible? The Qu'ran says of Allah that he says and it must be. That is my view of God, for there is but one God and no other. Why would I then insult one who trys to serve the one true God even as I do? We may not always agree, but more than we disagree, I assure you.

OK I really want to get involved in this as Pen said in for a penny in for a pound but I can afford to allow my brain to think about anything other that Information traffic systems and the stages of communications reveloution.
And actually there are muslims who hold with the if you arent a msulim your unclean theory, and I actually have a proper example of that but more tomorrow.

"Its starnge why you "not christian" was angry when i posted verses "

Why indeed was I angry? It was because, to me, the way you use the Bible is the spiritual equivalent of throwing a dead dog in someone else's well.

However, you have the right to argue any way you want, and ennison is quite right in his timely reminder.

Ushta te

.

Again i say i didnt insult any one. You are talking about me like i insulted all christians and all bible while i didnt, all i did is that i wrote a verse. I didnt write any word from my mind, words of Jesus pbuh i wrote, why you try to ashow that i am the one who insult. My question was clear Why Jesus pbuh said Satan to Peter? thats it, nothing more and nothing less, its not me the one who said Satan about Peter. If you dont have the answer say i dont have the answer and thats it.
I dont have any prob with christians, i consider my freinds, no hate i got for them, all i want is to see if they will accept to discuss with evidences their book.
Here in univ they insult islam, they put posters talking bad about my religoiun, all lies no evidences, and every time i pass i must see these posters, they talòk about Mouahmmed with no respect, while in my islamic country never we talked bad about christians, never we learned to hate them or to show them as worst people on earth, christians in our countrys are christians who never saw descriminations never saw hate and also they respect us. Since i arrived here and they insult me every time they shoot at me, but i dont care alot, i write my posts to see if they are really strong in their belief and to show that we dont insult we discuss with evidences, and to show that we respect as my religioun teach me, but every time i write others say why you dont respect why you dont do this why you are not like other muslims, i never insulted, if you go back to all my previuos posts you will find that i never wrote bad word about any one, all i do is writing verses. Any way i am sorry if any one felt insulted and if you want i wont discuss this thread.

Night i didnt understand these words: "think about the attitude some muslims take about Omar ibn el khatab let alone Ali ibn abi talib".
Beside i wanted to tell you something before about saying that prophet Ibraheem pbuh was searching God and he said about sun that he is God and same thing about moon, i think you wrote a before in a post such thing or i think you meant this thing, any way... I just want to say to you that Ibraheem wasnt seeking for God in this verse, he was discussing with his people who worshipped stones, and wanted to show them how its stupid to worship moon so he said first that the moon cant be his god because it went aways and same thing about sun, and finally in verse he say "i am innocent from what you are worshiping". In other words he was discussing trying to give examples so they can think with a logical way and deny all other gods they worship and accept the one truly God.

Fine I was wrong, whatever I dont care anymore.
I dont think s&S meant to insult nyone, it was a bit of the wrong way to word it especially on such a sesitive topic but its excuseable.
You know what Im really sick of ? people whining about the misrepresntation of thier religion, yes it serious issue but whining isnt going to fix it , so if you dont like do somthing to changes it ottherwise shut up. As t the Omar remark Ive edited it out ad Ill pm you with what I mean as soon as this headche goes away and I feel less like punching someone.

Then Shield&Sword, I have perhaps misjudged this matter. If your question was simply why did Jesus pbuh use the word "Satan" in referring to Peter, it was because Peter was trying to stop Jesus pbuh from fulfilling His destiny and that advice could not come from God, but from the Adversary. He meant that Peter's advice was that of Satan, as when Jesus pbuh was tempted in the wilderness. Remember when Job said his wife spoke like a foolish woman for suggesting he curse God and die? He didn't call her a fool; he said she acted foolish. This is similar. "Peter you are inspired of Satan. Put it behind you. I came for this cause." I apologize myself, mon ami. I see Night called you S&S. Will that be OK, if I use that? You may call me Pen, everyone does. Allah smile upon you. :)

"If your question was simply why did Jesus pbuh use the word "Satan" in referring to Peter, it was because Peter was trying to stop Jesus pbuh from fulfilling His destiny and that advice could not come from God, but from the Adversary. He meant that Peter's advice was that of Satan, as when Jesus pbuh was tempted in the wilderness."

I agree that is how it reads. In the desert, Jesus was tempted by Satan to follow paths that were not of God's choosing. Satan failed then, but he is no fool, and knows that it is often easier to resist temptations that arise in our own hearts, than those that are expressed through the mouths of those who love us. So the temptation to turn aside came again, but this time through the first chosen disciple.

The phrase that follows "Back Satan," may be translated as "stumbling block," but, according to my dictionary, the word used meant primarily "snare or trap," something you fall into, rather than fall over. It seems to support the idea that Jesus was recognising that Peter's words were simply the Temptations in a different guise. The word (“scandalon” in the Greek) was definitely not any kind of a pun on Peter's name, as has been suggested.

It is perfectly obvious that Jesus continued to have full confidence in Peter, as the incident we have been discussing was followed by the Transfiguration episode - the revelation of Christ as divine - to which Peter was one of the three chosen witnesses.

.

I have only one question, i dont know if i ask it then you will say that i insulted all world. Can i ask it? if you dont want to discuss then its ok for me. Pen sure you can call me that way.

Beside i didnt whine, when i wrote about how other reppresent my religioun i talked to compare and show the difference between insulting really(the way others use) and between my way in talking, the point i wanted to arrive is that i dont insult while they want to show me that i am insulting. I wrote that i dont care about how others reppresent my religioun, because really i dont care about the people who insult, in arabic there is saying " does clouds get hurted when dogs bark?", and for me every one insult me then he is the dog.
i have alot of christian freinds, arabs and europian, we are so strong in relaition and they respect me and i respect them alot and wish good for them, such people are different from others who insult day and night, and if i discuss religioun with them they wont feel insulted because discussing is not insulting.
Night if you have something useful to add to subject then go on, if you dont then you can see other threads and make people smile.

"I have only one question, i dont know if i ask it then you will say that i insulted all world."

I think that I am the only one (in this thread) who has said that you are insulting, and ennison and Nightshade have shown me the error of my ways.

You don't need to ask my permission, as I've said already, you have the right to argue any way you like as long as you are within the forum rules. I suggest you re-read those rules, and if your question is within the rules, and you think it will tend to the greater glory of God, then post it.

I didnt mean you had whined its just an attitude Ive been seeing alot of recntly on the internet and RL and you could say it was the straw the broke the camels back but the dam is back up and calmness rules again:rolleyes:.
But one more thing to mediate I can see where whifflingpin is coming from too,S&S's wording and all that.
Actually Im toatly confused on the issue too but I think ( have gone back and read S&S original post) this is an issue everyone is just going to have to agree to disagree on.

To agree to disagree is not a bad thing, if then people will as the Native American's put it "Bury the hatchet." Once buried, however, please don't go and dig it back up! If we work for the cause of the one true God, and yes, we may not all call Him by the same name, but that doesn't change Him, He is unchanging, then the enemy is not each other. "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed one of another." If the Adversary can get us to fight each other, he can take a holiday, because we will do his job for him! Do we do the work of God or of Satan?

Just sort of skimmed over this. I've never lost a lot of sleep of the Peter is/is not the Rock. I believe that the God of the Bible NEVER shares His glory with another (due I believe to His purity and holiness and greatness) and anything that even hints that a mortal man is MORE then that is probably on the wrong track. I liken the relationship of God and man to that of the mouse and elephant who cross a wooden bridge together and after passage the mouse says, "Wow, didn't we make that bridge shake!" and the elephant quietly continues to walk with the mouse guarding him from the lions about.

Hope this perception helps.

Rich (but I'm really poor)

Religion what a thing.... christians or anybodys religous group derived from christianity hasn't ever been able to proof to me if there really is a god, or if we should take the bible as his word in stead of fiction derived so that storytellers may have texts to read from, prove to me that the bible is gods work and maybe i'll beleive in god

Again, a wonderful thoughtful discussion... And no offense taken (or given, hopefully).

An LDS perspective (though not necessarily the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):

From the book "Jesus the Christ", by James E. Talmage ( an LDS author )
NOTES TO CHAPTER 22:

Brother Talmage had an explanation re: of Peter being the "rock" that might ruffle some feathers here, but I leave it in the spirit of sharing another point of view.

"7. Simon Peter and the "Rock" of Revelation. -- Simon the son of Jonas, on the occasion of his first recorded interview with Jesus had received from the Lord's lips the distinguishing name-title "Peter," or in the Aramaic tongue "Cephas," the English equivalent of which is "a rock" or "a stone" (John 1:42). The name was confirmed upon the apostle on the occasion now under consideration (Matt. 16:18). Jesus said to him "thou art Peter," adding, "and upon this rock I will build my church." In the course of the general apostasy subsequent to the ancient apostolic ministry, the Bishop of Rome laid claim to supreme authority as the alleged lineal successor to Peter; and an erroneous
doctrine gained currency to the effect that Peter was the "rock" upon which the Church of Christ was founded. Detailed consideration of this inconsistent and infamous claim cannot be undertaken here; it is sufficient to say that a church founded or dependent upon Peter or any other man would be Peter's or the other man's church, and not the Church of Jesus Christ. (See The Great Apostasy, chap. 9; also 3 Ne. 27:1-8; also chapter 40 herein). That upon Peter rested the responsibility of presidency in the ministry, after the ascension of the resurrected Christ, is not questioned; but that he was, even typically, the foundation upon which the Church was built, is at once unscriptural and untrue. The Church of Jesus Christ must authoritatively bear His name, and guided by revelation, direct and continuous, as the conditions of its building require. Revelation from God to His servants invested with the Holy Priesthood through authorized ordination as was Peter is the impregnable "rock" upon which the Church is built. (See Articles of Faith, chapter 16.)"

In "The Book of Mormon" Christ says to His new disciples in America (no Peter): "Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine. And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me, and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me; And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned."

( 'Damned' meaning: no longer able to continue spiritual progress upon the road to salvation. [my humble explanation])

Christ continues: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this, buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock, but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell standeth open to receive such, when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken unto the ends of the earth."

My analysis, in the above, Christ speaks of Himself and His doctrine as the rock or foundation for His church... Peter not being present in the Americas (at this time).



In a talk by James A. Carver, instructor at University of Washington Institute of Religion:

"Critics sometimes question the Latter-day Saint doctrine of priesthood authority by citing two passages of scripture, one in Matthew and one in Hebrews. Interestingly, Latter-day Saints use these same references to support the doctrine of the priesthood. Fortunately, however, because of modern-day revelation, Latter-day Saints do not depend upon the Bible alone for their complete understanding of this and other doctrines.

The first passage of scripture, Matthew 16:13–19 [Matt. 16:13–19], has been used by Catholics to support their position that a continuous chain of authority extends from the Apostle Peter to the present pope:

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? …

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

“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.

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Joseph Smith explained that the rock upon which the Church would be built was revelation. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938, p. 274.) Indeed, revelation was the issue at hand. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ through revelation: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

The Bible also supports this interpretation. A textual analysis of this passage clearly demonstrates that, although the keys of the kingdom were given to Simon Peter, the church was not built upon him. It was built, instead, upon Christ, the “rock” of revelation.

The Greek text, for example, makes it clear that the “rock” in verse 18 was not Peter. The Greek word used for Peter is petros, a masculine noun meaning a small rock or stone. The Greek word for rock (“upon this rock”) is petra, a feminine noun meaning bedrock. Thus, the Greek text reads like this: “Thou art Peter [petros, small rock], and upon this rock [petra, bedrock] I will build my church.”

Who is this petra, this large rock-mass? The answer is given explicitly in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 [1 Cor. 10:1–4]:

“… All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

“And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

“And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

“And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” (Italics added.)

The Greek word for Rock in the passage above, as in the verse in Matthew, is petra (bedrock). There is no question that Christ is the “Rock” the Church was to be built upon, rather than Peter. Paul told the Corinthians that “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:11.)

But what is the importance of the relationship between the bedrock and the stone? And what part does revelation play in this relationship?

When Simon Peter was first introduced to Jesus, the Lord changed Simon’s name to “Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” (John 1:42.) In the Joseph Smith Translation, a clarifying word is given: “Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone.” (Italics added.)

The reason for Simon’s new name does not become clear until the experience at Caesarea Philippi, quoted earlier. Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained: “In promising him the keys of the kingdom, our Lord [told] Peter that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the rock of revelation, or in other words against seership. (Matt. 16:18.)

The Mount of Transfiguration experience was essential for the new role Peter would play. Just as the mount was a rock of revelation, it was by revelation that Peter knew Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The small rock (Peter) was to become a “seer” who would receive revelation from the large rock (Jesus Christ)—the Rock of Revelation. He would be the one to hold the keys of the kingdom and represent the Lord upon the earth. He would feed the sheep. (See John 21:15–17.)

Jesus did not say to Peter that there would always be a seer upon the earth to hold the keys of the kingdom, but that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against “this rock”—petra, or the Rock of Revelation. “In this instance,” wrote Elder McConkie, “Jesus is telling Peter that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the rock of revelation; that is, as long as the saints are living in righteousness so as to receive revelation from heaven, they will avoid the gates of hell and the Church itself will remain pure, undefiled, and secure against every evil. But when, because of iniquity, revelation ceases, then the gates of hell prevail against the people.” (Commentary, 1:389.)

Catholics do not accept the principle of modern-day revelation; the popes are not considered “seers” who receive revelation from the Rock. Protestants accept the conclusion that the church was not built upon Peter, but they fail to recognize the significance of the role of the petros, the seer who holds the keys of the kingdom. We are indeed blessed as Latter-day Saints to understand the full meaning of this important event in the Bible."


And back to Brother Talmage: NOTES TO CHAPTER 22:

"8. Christ's Rebuke to Peter. -- In addressing Peter as "Satan," Jesus was obviously using a forceful figure of speech, and not a literal designation; for Satan is a distinct personage, Lucifer, that fallen, unembodied son of the morning; and certainly Peter was not he. In his remonstrance or "rebuke" addressed to Jesus, Peter was really counseling what Satan had before attempted to induce Christ to do, or tempting, as Satan himself had tempted. The command, "Get thee behind me, Satan," as directed to Peter, is rendered in English by some authorities "Get thee behind me, tempter." The essential meaning attached to both Hebrew and Greek originals for our word "Satan" is that of an adversary, or "one who places himself in another's way and thus opposes him." (Zenos.) The expression "Thou art an offense unto me" is admittedly a less literal translation than "Thou art a stumbling-block unto me." The man whom Jesus had addressed as Peter -- "the rock," was now likened to a stone in the path, over which the unwary might stumble."



re:

LazarusLong "Religion what a thing.... christians or anybodys religous group derived from christianity hasn't ever been able to proof to me if there really is a god, or if we should take the bible as his word in stead of fiction derived so that storytellers may have texts to read from, prove to me that the bible is gods work and maybe i'll beleive in god"...

I'm glad you continue to consider proofs of our almighty, loving, Heavenly Father. From that one kernal of thought (since you haven't closed your mind entirely, evidently) great faith may one day blossom.

The prophet Joseph once sought an answer... "Joseph Smith -History 1: 11.

"11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

Sincerely,
tailor STATELY