• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Jesus, peter, keys matt 16

makesends said:
Sometimes, and I think it is a temporarily slow or busy internet connection that does it, when you hit "reply" to the message, the browser's inherent programming takes you to where the quoted message should show up, but it doesn't show up unless you wait long enough before writing. I'm thinking I even remember beginning to write, and in the middle of my response, the quote jumps into what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
thank you

and sometimes it puts half the message on top of the previous message and half below

you right
 
donadams said:
thank you

and sometimes it puts half the message on top of the previous message and half below

you right
Click to expand...
Check before you post. If it posts like the above, you have a period of time to edit and move things where they ought to be.
 
Which ROCK was the church built upon:
  • Simon, the man that said what others had said?
  • The TRUTH being revealed by God the Father?
  • The MOUNTAIN upon which they stood ... symbolic of the power of Satan and of DEATH and of the GRAVE ... all of which Jesus would soon conquer at His death and Resurrection!
Personally, I think you are placing your trust in the wrong pebble ... but that is no skin off my nose.
 
atpollard said:
Which ROCK was the church built upon:
  • Simon, the man that said what others had said?
  • The TRUTH being revealed by God the Father?
  • The MOUNTAIN upon which they stood ... symbolic of the power of Satan and of DEATH and of the GRAVE ... all of which Jesus would soon conquer at His death and Resurrection!
Personally, I think you are placing your trust in the wrong pebble ... but that is no skin off my nose.
Click to expand...
Nice play on Greek words.
 
atpollard said:
Life offers so few opportunities for Koine Greek puns, so you need to take them when they come your way. ;)
Click to expand...
I had a liberal atheistic friend to whom I was saying that when I think of something funny --specially if it's a play on words, or worse, a pun-- I feel this visceral need to speak it to someone, and it doesn't even necessarily matter just who! He said, "Yeah! When you've got a pun, you've GOT to get it out, or it'll fester in there!"

Once in a while, liberals are funny.
 
makesends said:
I had a liberal atheistic friend to whom I was saying that when I think of something funny --specially if it's a play on words, or worse, a pun-- I feel this visceral need to speak it to someone, and it doesn't even necessarily matter just who! He said, "Yeah! When you've got a pun, you've GOT to get it out, or it'll fester in there!"

Once in a while, liberals are funny.
Click to expand...
angel's are nobodies!

no body Lol!
 
donadams said:
How do you govern a church by a confession?

the keys of jurisdictional authority are only given to a person

Christ is still the head of the church!
but Peter only administers it!

thanks
Click to expand...
Though I highly doubted you would understand I truly was hoping you would.
 
Carbon said:
Though I highly doubted you would understand I truly was hoping you would.
Click to expand...
Peter and Mary are fascinating. Most of Protestantism holds them in far too low esteem ... sort of a "counterweight" to the RCC and its excessive veneration. Peter really had a few impressive moments, and is someone we (as new Christians) can both relate to and aspire towards. Daniel is too perfect to relate to (at least I never feel like a Daniel). Paul is too accomplished to really aspire to. However, Peter can really "face plant" at some times and can "rise to the occasion" at other times ... and my walk just feels a lot more like that most years.*

[*EDIT: I know ... we aren't supposed to say that. We Christians just go from Victory to Victory, right? ;) ]
 
donadams said:
i need a reason?

"John the Baptist "

Jn 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

"Andrew"

Jn 1:41

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

"Nathaniel"

Jn 1:49

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

why are these not the rock then?
why only Peter's confession?

thks
Click to expand...
Why question only me? Question Augustine and other ECF's.
 
donadams said:
"John the Baptist "

Jn 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

"Andrew"

Jn 1:41

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

"Nathaniel"

Jn 1:49

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

why are these not the rock then?
why only Peter's confession?

thks
Click to expand...
I do not think the CHURCH was built upon PETER. Just as a practical Matter, reading ACTS, Paul and Barnabas and Mark and Timothy and Luke (traveling together and in pairs) spread the word and started more Churches (local congregations) than Peter did. I am not dissing on Peter, he was there, lifting and leading with the others (and having some firsts), but the bulk of the Church was built by Paul and his journeys. Even after the Apostolic age, most of what the church knows is due to the letters of Paul rather than Peter.

So if we set aside the PERSON (because history does not support that meaning), then what other possibilities are there?

Was the CHURCH built upon what PETER said?
Well, as you have actually pointed out quite well, the actual words of Peter were well timed, but not exactly a unique revelation. Peter was not even the first to say them (You quoted Nathaniel saying basically the same thing). However, I am a firm believer that CONTEXT IS KING and we would be fools to ignore what JESUS said ABOUT Peters words (which he did not say about any of the other times those words were spoken). "GOD REVEALED THEM TO YOU!" That is what Jesus said.

I posit, for your consideration, was that combination the ROCK (immovable bedrock) upon which the CHURCH would be built?
GOD would reveal the truth that "Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God" to those that would become the Church. and Peter (stone) was one of the first stones laid in the foundation of that CHURCH (along with the other Apostles that received that same revelation from the same source.)

Does the HISTORY of the church support that possible interpretation?
Was the church built upon the "bedrock" of GOD revealing the Son to those that would become the "Living Stones" in His Church?

You decide if the CHURCH was built upon a man, or upon a revelation of God. [I am unqualified to decide so important a matter for you.]
 
atpollard said:
I do not think the CHURCH was built upon PETER. Just as a practical Matter, reading ACTS, Paul and Barnabas and Mark and Timothy and Luke (traveling together and in pairs) spread the word and started more Churches (local congregations) than Peter did. I am not dissing on Peter, he was there, lifting and leading with the others (and having some firsts), but the bulk of the Church was built by Paul and his journeys. Even after the Apostolic age, most of what the church knows is due to the letters of Paul rather than Peter.

So if we set aside the PERSON (because history does not support that meaning), then what other possibilities are there?

Was the CHURCH built upon what PETER said?
Well, as you have actually pointed out quite well, the actual words of Peter were well timed, but not exactly a unique revelation. Peter was not even the first to say them (You quoted Nathaniel saying basically the same thing). However, I am a firm believer that CONTEXT IS KING and we would be fools to ignore what JESUS said ABOUT Peters words (which he did not say about any of the other times those words were spoken). "GOD REVEALED THEM TO YOU!" That is what Jesus said.

I posit, for your consideration, was that combination the ROCK (immovable bedrock) upon which the CHURCH would be built?
GOD would reveal the truth that "Jesus is the Christs, Son of the Living God" to those that would become the Church. and Peter (stone) was one of the first stones laid in the foundation of that CHURCH (along with the other Apostles that received that same revelation from the same source.)

So does the HISTORY of the church support that possible interpretation? Was the church built upon the "bedrock" of GOD revealing the Sov to those that would become the "Living Stones" in His Church?

You decide if the CHURCH was built upon a man, or upon a revelation of God. [I am unqualified to decide so important a matter for you.]
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
atpollard said:
I do not think the CHURCH was built upon PETER. Just as a practical Matter, reading ACTS, Paul and Barnabas and Mark and Timothy and Luke (traveling together and in pairs) spread the word and started more Churches (local congregations) than Peter did. I am not dissing on Peter, he was there, lifting and leading with the others (and having some firsts), but the bulk of the Church was built by Paul and his journeys. Even after the Apostolic age, most of what the church knows is due to the letters of Paul rather than Peter.

So if we set aside the PERSON (because history does not support that meaning), then what other possibilities are there?

Was the CHURCH built upon what PETER said?
Well, as you have actually pointed out quite well, the actual words of Peter were well timed, but not exactly a unique revelation. Peter was not even the first to say them (You quoted Nathaniel saying basically the same thing). However, I am a firm believer that CONTEXT IS KING and we would be fools to ignore what JESUS said ABOUT Peters words (which he did not say about any of the other times those words were spoken). "GOD REVEALED THEM TO YOU!" That is what Jesus said.

I posit, for your consideration, was that combination the ROCK (immovable bedrock) upon which the CHURCH would be built?
GOD would reveal the truth that "Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God" to those that would become the Church. and Peter (stone) was one of the first stones laid in the foundation of that CHURCH (along with the other Apostles that received that same revelation from the same source.)

Does the HISTORY of the church support that possible interpretation?
Was the church built upon the "bedrock" of GOD revealing the Son to those that would become the "Living Stones" in His Church?

You decide if the CHURCH was built upon a man, or upon a revelation of God. [I am unqualified to decide so important a matter for you.]
Click to expand...
thanks for the honesty and good reasoning

the mosaic covenant was built on and governed by men, Moses & Josua, and their successors matt 23:1

why does Jesus change inly Peters name, what is significant in scripture when God changes a name?

why is Peter (his person) is declared blessed?

why does only Peter receive the keys of the kingdom? (jurisdiction)

thks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Carbon
The antichristian Church
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
2K
Hazelelponi
H
Carbon
Unconditional Election
Replies
3
Views
97
fastfredy0
fastfredy0
Carbon
But whom say ye that I am?
Replies
18
Views
530
atpollard
atpollard
Arial
The Impartiality of God
Replies
2
Views
130
ReverendRV
ReverendRV
B
The Institutional Church vs. House Assemblies
Replies
6
Views
147
Josheb
Josheb
Back
Top