On this rock

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The disciple to whom Jesus addressed this statement was named Simon. But Jesus changed his name to Peter (Greek, Petros), which means "rock." The Reformers claimed that because the usual Greek word for rock, petra, is slightly different from Petros, Jesus must have been contrasting Peter with the rock. They claimed that it was really Peter's statement that Jesus was the Christ that was the "rock" upon which Jesus would build His Church.

But Jesus spoke to His disciples in Aramaic, not Greek, and in Aramaic, the same word, Kepha, would have appeared in both places in the sentence. Therefore, most modern Protestant scholars have abandoned the Reformers' argument and they now agree with the Catholic Church that Peter was the rock to which Jesus referred. For example, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes,


The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.[1]

Also, David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote,


It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.[2]

Also this


Peter the Rock?


by Gary Hoge

Catholics look to Matthew 16:17-19 as the primary biblical basis for the Papacy. They claim that Jesus designated Peter as the earthly rock upon which He would build His Church. Let's have a look at these verses:


Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this [Christ's identity] was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

When we read this in English, we must remember that this apostle's name was Simon, not Peter, and that's how Jesus addressed him in verse 17: "Blessed are you, Simon . . ." It's easy to forget that "Peter" was not a name, as it is today, it was a Greek word meaning "rock." So what Jesus said was, "Blessed are you Simon. I tell you that you are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church." Catholics interpret this literally. They believe that Jesus Himself is the invisible, spiritual foundation of the Church, the "chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20), but that Peter is the visible, organizational foundation of the Church on earth.

Protestants have historically claimed that the "rock" in verse 18 refers, not to Peter, but to Peter's confession of Christ, or to Christ Himself. They based this primarily on the fact that the Greek word "Peter" (Petros) is slightly different from the word "rock" (petra). Therefore, they concluded that the rock cannot refer to Peter. But the reason for the difference is simple: the Greek word "rock" (petra) is feminine, and one would not give a man a feminine nickname. The word "Peter," Petros, is simply the masculine form of petra.

Petros happens to be a preexisting Greek word. In the past, some Protestants argued that it means "a small pebble," whereas petra means "a large rock." Thus, they concluded that Jesus was contrasting Peter with the rock. However, this line of reasoning is very weak for a number of reasons, as Protestant scholar D.A. Carson explains:


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 Pe****ta (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. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size).[1]

It is important to bear in mind, as Carson just pointed out, that Jesus spoke to his disciples in Aramaic, not Greek.[2] He did not refer to Simon with the Greek word Petros, he used the Aramaic word Kepha, as the Bible clearly states:


And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas [Kepha]" (which, when translated, is Peter [Petros]). (John 1:42).

Cephas is simply the Aramaic word Kepha rendered phonetically into Greek. Kepha means "a large rock" in Aramaic, just as petra does in Greek. It does not mean "a small pebble."[3] In the New Testament, Simon's new name, Kepha, was usually translated into Greek as Petros, but eight times it was merely rendered phonetically as Cephas.[4] What Jesus actually said, then, was, "I tell you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." In Aramaic the same word appears in both places.

Thus, we see that the historic Protestant argument that Peter is not the rock really has no basis. In fact most modern Protestant scholars have abandoned it, and they now agree with the Catholic Church that Peter is, in some way, the rock upon which Jesus would build His Church. For instance, Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes,


The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.[5]

Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent wrote,


The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.[6]

Protestant scholar W.F. Albright wrote,


This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.).[7]

David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote,


It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.[8]

It is not just Catholics and modern Protestant scholars who agree that Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock upon which He would build His Church; the early Christians also fully understood that this was Jesus's meaning. Let us not forget that these are the people who were closest to Jesus in time, language, and culture. They are the ones most likely to have understood Him correctly. This is what some of them wrote:


Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the Church would be built" with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth"? (Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? "Upon you," he says, "I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys." (Tertullian, Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

[Jesus said,] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter [i.e., Rock], because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. (Ephraim the Syrian, Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


It is clear that the early Christians believed that Peter was the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church, just as the Catholic Church has always claimed. And although the Reformers denied it, their descendents agree: Peter is the rock.

Is it too much off a challenge?...

No, you've already made up your mind. So why discuss?

so we all can learn about each others faiths and grow closer to God...

Ickmeister, I think that Emily is right in her inference - that what you have posted is obviously biased in favour of the Catholic church and to all appearance you would seem to have your mind already made up. I take it you have posted this in order to justify the ordination and office of the Pope. Every protestant will disagree with this view and the discussion of it in my opinion, wouldn't draw anyone closer to God but rather cause deep division which is perhaps why no one has replied to your post - this and the fact that is was quite long which is kind of offputting unless the subject immediately grabs your attention and is something you are deeply interested in.

The way that I look at this scripture 'thou art Peter the rock' is this. Peter was the first apostle to go to the gentiles and I think this is why he is called the rock. In Acts 10 God gives Peter a vision and then a visitation by three men, during which Peter concludes 'Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation; God has shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean'... 'Of a truth, I perceive that God is not respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.... Peter continues to preac and at the end of his exhortation, 'the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision (the jews) which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter (everyone that came with him) because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have reveived the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.'

Because of this, Peter is summoned to Jerusalem and called to give account as the jewish believers there 'contended with him.' After explaining what had happened, the council concluded 'When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.' This is the beginning of the church worldwide. Until then the jewish believers thought that Jesus came only for them. This is how I interpret Jesus calling Peter, 'the rock' - because he was the instrumental in the establishment of the church worldwide and the inclusion of all people instead of just the Jews. In this he was the foundation..the rock, and the church - which is a people not a building, then began to be built throughout the whole world, inclusive instead of exclusive, of the gentile nations.

I have never heard any convincing non-catholic explanation of that text and I therefore am forced to agree with the Catholic explanation. On its own that does not allow for Papal rule but it's a starting point. I'd have thought that choosing weak Peter as the rock on which to base his church shows that Christ had a wry sense of humour but more seriously it tells us that Christ values weakness more than strength, that the Church is made of human beings not saints with special supernatural powers. The several references to the head of the corner or cornerstone are undoubtedly references to Christ himself.

Very interesting your post Ick but i didnt read it all, scuse me i dont have much time, i will soon if God wants.
Mathew 16:22:23 Peter show his love to Jesus and wish he wont die, but Jesus pbuh respond him with so hard words, he call him Satan, and why he call him Satan? because he (Peter) is a block infront Jesus and has thoughts of man not God. Jesus him self asked God to not make him die and he prayed to God, was Jesus Satan because he asked such thing (he asked same thing that Peter asked)? no one will say that. Then why Jesus called the man that tried to show his love to Jesus with the most brutal word "DUVIL"? couldnt he talk with more nice words? Jesus explain why by saying that he want to change what God decided. What did Peter change? i think that this verse about the rock is the prophecy of Jesus: "you are block infront me, you have thoughts of man not God" , some claim that Peter has the right to allow what is forbidden and to forbid what is allowed, and infact if we look at the verse that allow the eating of pork, we will see that Peter is the one who allowded it by seeing a dream after Jesus pbuh went to heaven, infact he changed the words of God in old Test. Jesus him self said that he didnt come to cancel the old test but to complete it, while we see peter contraddict with old test and alloweded something known as "dirty", "not pure" and its obviuos that the dirty thing remain dirty and not the words make the dirty nature become clean, and pork is dirty by nature as as its known and as decided in old test. Was Peter called Satan because of such behaive? are these rules he decide thoughts of the Peter Man not thoughts of God? and infact its the proof that pork wasnt allowed at time of Jesus pbuh. Its interesting the verse of the rock and the power handed to Peter, and the decisions he decide. I dont want to mix islamic verses in this thread but what is written in Holy Quran about preists is very interesting, its written in Surah 9 verse 31 "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Al-Masih, the son of Maryam; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). " . They said to prophet Muhammed pbuh that christians dont pray to their priests, he responded: " didnt they allow to them what is forbidden and forbid what is allowded? people responded yes, he said thats like worshiping them because they left words of God and took words of man.
Infact Jesus said this thing by saying to Peter "Satan" "you Got thoughts of man not God", and we see that Peter was a block infront Jesus because they took words of Peter the one who allowded what is forbidden and left words of Jesus inspired to him from God. We dont see this thing only made by Peter but also by Paul the one that contraddict with words of Jesus when the poor man ask him what he must do to go to paradise and Jesus respond him by saying "with good deeds", but Paul say "no good deeds will get you in paradise but beleiving in crucifictioin will" and people take the words of Paul, infact discussing with any christian about crucifiction he will say "crucifiction will make us arrive to paradise and we are weak and not our deeds will make us arrive to paradise.

I didnt read all words of Peter so i dont know if he only changed this thing or there are other things he changed, i dont have much time to check i am in middle of exams.

Edited out my angry response to Shield & Sword's claptrap.

Apologies to any decent Moslems who might have seen my earlier post.

Really i didnt intend to insult any religiuon, i didnt post words describing something i dont know as others do about my religiuon always. All i did is that i posted verses that raised mark of question for me, all i wanted is an explination nothing more, didnt intend to insult any one, sorry for every one who felt insulted. If you want i can cancel my previuos post.

“All i did is that i posted verses that raised mark of question for me, all i wanted is an explination nothing more”
Frankly I do not believe this statement. I can say this as an impartial observer. I am not a Christian, and you have not insulted my religion. It is, however, obvious that you are intending to be insulting to Christians.

Nonetheless, I will offer some explanation, as you request. You are quite welcome to reject my explanations - as I have said, I am not a Christian and will not be offended. However, please speak of Peter and Paul and other early Christians with the sort of respect that you would wish others to speak of the immediate followers of Mohammed.


“Mathew 16:22:23 Peter show his love to Jesus and wish he wont die, but Jesus pbuh respond him with so hard words, he call him Satan, and why he call him Satan? because he (Peter) is a block infront Jesus and has thoughts of man not God. Jesus him self asked God to not make him die and he prayed to God, was Jesus Satan because he asked such thing (he asked same thing that Peter asked)? no one will say that. Then why Jesus called the man that tried to show his love to Jesus with the most brutal word "DUVIL"? couldnt he talk with more nice words? Jesus explain why by saying that he want to change what God decided. What did Peter change?”
“ i think that this verse about the rock is the prophecy of Jesus: "you are block infront me, you have thoughts of man not God" ,

The words were not a prophecy, but a statement. In tempting Jesus to avoid the path, Peter was speaking, at that moment, from a human not a divine perspective. Jesus’ response was immediate, not prophetic.


“some claim that Peter has the right to allow what is forbidden and to forbid what is allowed,”

This claim is based simply on Jesus words to Peter “I will give you the keys of Heaven. What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.” Presumably, you choose to reject these words, because they don’t suit your belief, but they give Peter the authority to interpret the will of God for men.


“and infact if we look at the verse that allow the eating of pork, we will see that Peter is the one who allowded it by seeing a dream after Jesus pbuh went to heaven, infact he changed the words of God in old Test. Jesus him self said that he didnt come to cancel the old test but to complete it, while we see peter contraddict with old test and alloweded something known as "dirty", "not pure" and its obviuos that the dirty thing remain dirty and not the words make the dirty nature become clean, and pork is dirty by nature as as its known and as decided in old test.”

First – Peter’s decision was a practical application of Jesus’ words “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him unclean; what makes a man unclean is what comes out of his mouth.” So, Peter was only echoing the words of Christ.
Second - Christians believe that revelation is continuing, and that Peter’s dream was God sent, and therefore showed God’s will.
Third - Peter’s decision was clearly (in Christian eyes) ratified by God, whose Spirit descended on the uncircumcised followers of Christ, as described in the last verses of the chapter to which you were referring. The mission to the Gentiles was also foretold by Isaiah, among others.
Fourth – As Miranda implied in an earlier post in this thread, the facts of Christ’s sacrifice and Resurrection were, to Christians far more important than the religious taboos of the Jews. There was no reason for Jews to drop their customs, so Peter was not taking anything from them. However, the Resurrection showed God’s grace to all humanity, not just to those following Jewish law.
Fifth – the same law that declared pigs unclean also declared non-Jews unclean. You cannot uphold the uncleanness of pigs as God’s ruling (based on the Old Testament) unless you also admit that you, as a non-Jew are also a contamination. Moslems, however, as well as Christians, observe or disregard such of the Jewish law as they see fit.


“Was Peter called Satan because of such behaive?”
No

“ are these rules he decide thoughts of the Peter Man not thoughts of God?”
No


“Its interesting the verse of the rock and the power handed to Peter, and the decisions he decide. “

So, you acknowledge those verses – do you think that Jesus chose the wrong man to continue his work? Do you think that he would have chosen a Satanist to lead his people? What you have written shows your contempt for Jesus’ judgment, that is obvious, however many times you write “pbuh.”

“I dont want to mix islamic verses in this thread but what is written in Holy Quran about preists is very interesting, its written in Surah 9 verse 31 "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Al-Masih, the son of Maryam; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). " . They said to prophet Muhammed pbuh that christians dont pray to their priests, he responded: " didnt they allow to them what is forbidden and forbid what is allowded? people responded yes, he said thats like worshiping them because they left words of God and took words of man.”

Mohammed was mistaken. It was Jesus who gave the authority to bind and to loose. This authority has been exercised since then by the Church in its councils, and will continue. God’s word does not change, but the world does, and the Church claims the authority, derived from Jesus (who is, Christians believe, God on earth) to show how God’s will may be done.



”We dont see this thing only made by Peter but also by Paul the one that contraddict with words of Jesus when the poor man ask him what he must do to go to paradise and Jesus respond him by saying "with good deeds", but Paul say "no good deeds will get you in paradise but beleiving in crucifictioin will" and people take the words of Paul, infact discussing with any christian about crucifiction he will say "crucifiction will make us arrive to paradise and we are weak and not our deeds will make us arrive to paradise.”
(It is mere argumentativeness that makes you bring in Paul, who was not the subject of this thread, but - )
You said “Jesus him self said that he didnt come to cancel the old test but to complete it.” To St Paul, and so to Christians generally, the crucifixion is the completion of the old testament. Previously the Jews had followed the Law by offering sacrifices of animals, to atone for sins and so to come closer to God. Jesus fulfilled the Law by offering himself as the sacrifice and so atoning for all sins and ending the need for other sacrifices. The result of this was the Resurrection, not only for Jesus but for all. Good deeds are more important than religious taboos and observances, but God’s sacrifice of Himself is, to Christians, the means whereby we all may enter Heaven.

I leave it to the Christians of the forum to say whether my words are a fair summary of their position, and to continue, if they wish, any argument that may arise.

Oh, boy, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Why would Christ found His church on ANY MAN? "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

After this, Peter denies Christ three times, but repents, as Jesus said he would.

What question did Jeus ask his deciples and what answer did Peter alone give? Jesus asked "Whom do me say that I am?" The other deciples said this and that. Peter alone called Him The Christ. Jesus said "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revaled this unto you, but my Father who is in heaven." That was what was important. Not Peter. The Revelation of who Jesus was, that He was The Christ. The Church is founded upon that revelation. Did Peter die for your sins? Were you saved by Peter? Or does it take the blood of Christ? Ask yourself which is more important--
He Who Died For Sin or Peter, who preached about Him.

I never intend to insult, insulting for me is to say bad words about somthing and to describe it with worst words, such thing you see it always made by people you know, like Denmark when they draw the insulting images, or by the T.V when they relaite to my religioun things that they cant back up such statment with any islamic teachings, in other words "to relaite lies" and so on statments. If you look at all my posts i wrote about christianity you wont see any words i came up from my mind, i always discuss verses and never wrote something from my mind. Its starnge why you "not christian" was angry when i posted verses and nothing from my mind, while when others try to insult my faith without discussing one verse from Quran only lies and insults they write, no one get angry or defend my religioun. Any way...
PBUH mean peace be upon him. peace be upon all prophets.

My point was describing Peter as "Satan", if a man got thoughts of man not God he wont be Satan, simply he will be man. But Jesus the "Son of God" as alot believe described him with such brutal word, and if we look at teachings of Jesus pbuh we will see that he even said not to say to another one "fool", even fool we cant say to our brothers, but Jesus pbuh went more far with his insults in saying Satan to a man who tried to show him love.
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.

Well, isn't it even more important about why Jes. said suchwise. Based upon Jesus' immediately prior question, (my words) "Who the hell do you think I am?", the other disciples gave some half-a'd answers, then Peter steps forward and says what he says. So isn't Jesus sort of "toasting" and complimenting Peter's intuitive grasping, and ability to put into words, as to Jesus' mission and intention in life?

I for one didn't feel at all insulted. I struggle to follow some of the broken thoughts in broken English but got no sense of an intended insult and anyway even if I had I believe that one of the best freedoms we have is the freedom to be insulted. And no I don't go around giving gratuitous insults because of that - wee-ll not often anyway. Chill.

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