Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: On this rock

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Posts
    170

    Exclamation 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]

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Posts
    170
    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.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Posts
    170
    Is it too much off a challenge?...

  4. #4
    freaky geeky emily655321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    eking it out in the Pioneer Valley
    Posts
    3,434
    No, you've already made up your mind. So why discuss?
    If you had to live with this you'd rather lie than fall.
    You think I can't fly? Well, you just watch me!

    ~The Dresden Dolls

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Posts
    170
    so we all can learn about each others faiths and grow closer to God...

  6. #6
    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Registered User Shield&Sword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Paradise i built inside me.
    Posts
    273
    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.
    Last edited by Shield&Sword; 12-11-2006 at 05:46 PM.

  9. #9
    rat in a strange garret Whifflingpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    On the hill overlooking the harbour
    Posts
    2,410
    Edited out my angry response to Shield & Sword's claptrap.

    Apologies to any decent Moslems who might have seen my earlier post.
    Last edited by Whifflingpin; 12-11-2006 at 07:01 PM.
    Voices mysterious far and near,
    Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
    Are calling and whispering in my ear,
    Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?

  10. #10
    Registered User Shield&Sword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Paradise i built inside me.
    Posts
    273
    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.

  11. #11
    rat in a strange garret Whifflingpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    On the hill overlooking the harbour
    Posts
    2,410
    “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.
    Last edited by Whifflingpin; 12-12-2006 at 11:37 AM.
    Voices mysterious far and near,
    Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
    Are calling and whispering in my ear,
    Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?

  12. #12
    Lost in my own mind Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains, SW VA
    Posts
    19,219
    Blog Entries
    134

    Smile

    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.
    Some of us laugh
    Some of us cry
    Some of us smoke
    Some of us lie
    But it's all just the way
    that we cope with our lives...

  13. #13
    Registered User Shield&Sword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Paradise i built inside me.
    Posts
    273
    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.

  14. #14
    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?

  15. #15
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Brighton Rock: Some Help Please
    By Prashanth in forum General Literature
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-07-2008, 01:53 PM
  2. Aesop Rock
    By Aesopone in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-22-2006, 04:21 PM
  3. rock on!!
    By redge in forum The Time Machine
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 07:07 PM
  4. Me and The Rock
    By WX6[ck] in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-01-2003, 11:03 PM
  5. Rock Star Bios
    By chrissy in forum General Literature
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-07-2003, 12:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •