Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Where is scripture given the authority of self determination? or self 'defining'? I sure am missing a bunch of verses. 'T' how can a book have authority, what's it going to do to correct you when you're wrong, close on your finger?

JoeT

---

LOL... hey I can't help it if the BIBLE defines itself. I certainly didn't write it, I'm not that smart. :p The Bible is the word of God, HE said it... not me. That is the only authority I have. I may not be Einstein, (although lately you couldn't tell my looking at my HAIR) but I CAN read and the written word defines itself. Who ELSE is called the ROCK? I AM that I AM? The chief cornerSTONE? Sorry... I didn't make it up... I just read it and with the help of the Holy Spirit I am given some understanding .

Don't make me come through this computer and smack you. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Dave,

What you want to debate was my OPINION. and you are welcome to do that because it is only MY thoughts. BUT.....

I gave you biblical reasons as to why I believe this stone or rock is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is a self defining book. Rock and Stone....is MY savior not the church.

Honestly, it isn't about being a dispensationalist. I'm NOT trying to make my views FIT a pretrib rapture. No scripture is of a private interpretaion, therefore it must be compared with other scripture. Sorry Dave, Jesus IS the ROCK.

---

Agreed. But Jesus also lives in us, and is reaching the world through us. That was my point. The leaven parable shows it most effectively, at least for me, and when we take the Daniel vision in conjunction with the parables and Jesus' other descriptions of his kingdom, it starts to come together and we get a picture of the gradual growth of the kingdom, culminating in Jesus' return. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

LOL ...hey I can't help it if the BIBLE defines itself. I certainly didn't write it, I'm not that smart. :p The Bible is the word of God, HE said it...not me. That is the only authority i have. I may not be Einstein, (although lately you couldn't tell my looking at my HAIR) but i CAN read and the written word defines itself. Who ELSE is called the ROCK? I AM that I AM? the chief cornerSTONE? sorry...i didn't make it up...i just read it and with the help of the Holy Spirit I am given some understanding .


Don't make me come thru this computer and smack ya. :D

---

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It was on Skype. Sorry you missed it.

(Just think -- if only they had had cell phones and computers and Skype back then.)

---

DARN! I'm never on Skype when HE is... I miss everything. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

---

That's what she said -- the Rock is Jesus. He's alive and in our hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

'T', Rock is Christ; not bible. I AM IAM is God; not scripture. Scripture is a book, surly you don't worship a book? How does God work through our lives if He is stuck in a book?

JoeT

---

Oooooooh... fighten me on this huh? I'm going to take you down. LoL... the Bible isn't just a BOOK. It is the word of GOD. Ever read any mere BOOK that could do this:

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Jesus is... ( according to the Bible in the gospel of John) the Word... I do not worship the Bible... I worship the Word that was made flesh. I believe the Bible is everything God has to say to mankind. Therefore it is my ONLY authority.

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Fred,
I was quoting scripture from Isaiah and psalms that says states the Lord is the rock and the chief cornerstone. I wasn't talking about Peter at all. Trying to prove the Bible defines who the uncut stone really is in Daniel.

AND... I agree. The church isn't going to crush anything... nor bring the antichrist to his knees. We are too divided. We can't do it now... let alone during the tribulation period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Saying that Jesus is the rock in that passage is purposely taking it out of context .
Jesus was talking to Peter all the way through that and at the end told Peter He would give him the Keys To The Kingdom.
And no I do not believe that The Church will succeed in bringing the world to its knees or whatever for the arrival of the Messiah.
Rather I think the world will be very much divided and only a portion will be Christian as now they are just one third of the population.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

The reality is, Fred, suggesting that Peter is the rock is taking what was said out of context and is certainly not a faithful translation. That rock you suggest Peter to be is described as a stumbling block almost immediately. Is that Church "founded by Peter" a stumbling block, Fred? You should try reading Scripture in context. Have you considered that the Keys to the Kingdom may not be physical but his teachings? Interesting you focused on a third of the population, that is the number that Scripture says will be saved, so much for those who aren't part of the RCC eh, they get in after all

To clarify, I never said the church would crush anything. The church is what grows like yeast in a lump of dough, but the finishing blow has to come from Jesus himself at his return. I thought I made that clear. If Jesus truly is the head of the church, there's no problem with the view.

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

As for the "keys to the kingdom" we can only speculate about what that meant. We do know that the passage about binding and losing has been grossly misunderstood by some; what it says is "whatever you bind on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven" etc. The verbs are future perfects. Basically, Peter by his actions will acknowledge things that God has already established and decreed. My own view is that this refers to the spreading of the gospel beyond the Jews to encompass us Gentiles as well, which Peter initiated with Cornelius in Acts 10. It certainly isn't a blanket statement setting Peter up as the head of the church, and it says nothing whatsoever about any kind of succession.

That's as far as I'm willing to go on that front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Jesus didn't say Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. The name Peter is "petros," which means "a small stone," where the word Jesus used for "rock" is "petra," which basically means "a massive boulder." The "rock" he built his church on is himself, not any human.

---

Your reading would then be something like this -

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 a small stone, and upon this massive boulder of myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It just doesn't make sense - even in English. Immediately after acknowledging the supreme importance of the Father revealing to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (the first one to do so), Jesus calls Peter "a small stone" - huh? It doesn't follow.

Throw in all the arguments re language - Greek, poetic Greek, Aramaic (where the problem doesn't occur), Koine Greek - and the original reading by the Catholic Church holds up best.

(A few verses later, Jesus is calling Peter, Satan. But that probably is a later time.)

The passage clearly shows the primacy of Peter among the Apostles. Whether it can be extended to popes is another question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

And I say also unto thee, That thou art a small stone, and upon this massive boulder of myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/I]

It just doesn't make sense - even in English. Immediately after acknowledging the supreme importance of the Father revealing to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (the first one to do so), Jesus calls Peter "a small stone" - huh? It doesn't follow.

---

It makes perfect sense. If the Church isn't built on the massive boulder of the risen Christ... And Jesus was reminding Peter (the impulsive, even rash disciple) that he is merely a small stone in the foundation, whereas Jesus is the massive boulder, the cornerstone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It makes perfect sense. If the Church isn't built on the massive boulder of the risen Christ.... And Jesus was reminding Peter (the impulsive, even rash disciple) that he is merely a small stone in the foundation, whereas Jesus is the massive boulder, the cornerstone.

---

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning. The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning... I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

---

Oh, that is so true, isn't it!

Quote:

---

The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

---

Our Greek scholar (among many others) has (have? I need Rich!) said they are two different words with different meanings. Why would that be if Jesus hadn't meant He was referring to two different people? Why use two different words for rock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

It only makes sense when it is forced to do so. You are making an interpretation to fit into your already-held notion of the meaning. The language (little pebble, massive rock) is far too quirky for the author to have meant what you say it does.

I understand it's hard to come at these things objectively, but an attempt should be made, nevertheless.

---

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Oh, that is so true, isn't it!

Our Greek scholar (among many others) has (have? I need Rich!) said they are two different words with different meanings. Why would that be if Jesus hadn't meant He was referring to two different people? Why use two different words for rock?

---

There are very reasonable explanations for the language arguments/discrepancies. Google Matthew 16 and you will find them all - both Catholic and protestant. Too detailed to do them here.

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

Others say Matthew's Greek was the only legitimate way to understand the passage since that Greek was inspired by the Holy Spirit - even though it was not the language Jesus used. I don't give any weight to that kind of argument.

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millennia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I tend to come down on the side of the scholarship of the Catholic Church, especially since their position has been consistent for two millenia. There have been plenty of Greek scholars in the Church over that period of time.

---

And that's a valid argument? It's always been done that way, so it must be right? And let's interpret to fit the agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

One argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic, only one word would have been used, eliminating the problem. Some maintain Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Aramaic, but Koine Greek - a kind of patois.

---

I think we've reached a bit of an impasse on the Rock question, but I do want to address this, because it's erroneous.

Koine Greek was not a patois, it was the language of the common folks of the Roman Empire. "Koine" means "common" as opposed to the Attic of the philosophers and such. Let me give a somewhat embarrassing example.

I was talking with some people who were into the "prosperity" gospel. One verse they pointed at was 3 John 2, which out of context appears to say that one of the top apostles wants believers to prosper. I tried to explain the difference between genres that are prescriptive and those that are merely salutations. They stared at me like I had two heads. A week later, the pastor of our church stood up during his sermon and addressed that same question with the words "It's not a promise, it's a greeting." Same thing I said, except my answer was Attic (and hence way over the heads of regular people) and his was Koine.

Over the past 80 years or so we've come to realize that what used to be considered Aramaic influence on the Greek of the New Testament was nothing of the kind; we've found letters, shopping lists, bills of lading, certificates freeing slaves, you name it, from here and there around the ancient Roman world, and they show that this was "plain" Greek, not some Greek-Aramaic patois.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Actually, it's a pun. He's been calling Simon son of Jona "Peter" (or Cephas in Aramaic) for a long time, and he's pointing out that even though he's been calling him "rocky" so to speak, his church will be built on a much bigger Rock, i.e. himself.

There's an alternate interpretation, which suggests that the "rock" he's speaking of is Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. I could go with that one, too. But what he's definitely NOT saying is that Peter himself is the "rock."

---

I don't know how you can be so "definitive" about it when scholars disagree with your position in good faith. See my reply to Wondergirl above re reading the different points of view.