quote:
BTW, Peter means pebble. The rock that the church is built upon is the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. You don't build a church on a pebble.

Here's where you went wrong:

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek. The NT is written in Greek. Perhaps in Greek there is an argument that "Peter" means "pebble", that is not the case when one considers the meaning of the Aramaic name that Jesus gave to Simon, which is Kepha. In Aramaic, "Kepha" has no alternate meaning that can be interpreted as the word "pebble" in the English language.

So, you are wrong here, factually. It is factual because we know the actual languages, words and word definitions. You are wrong on this level, because the facts say you are wrong, not me - the facts.

You are also wrong on a logical level. Why would Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to a pebble? That defies logic. One must twist the life out of logic to reach the conclusion that Jesus meant to call Peter a "pebble." So, you are wrong on this level, too.

You are also wrong about Jesus meaning to call Peter a pebble in the level of the History of the Church. You are wrong on this third Historical level. We know that for over 1,500 years, all of Christendom considered Peter to have been named "Rock" by Jesus and not "pebble."

So, congratulations. You are wrong on three levels. That's the Trifecta of being wrong.

Can we get back to the Sola Scriptura Methodists who say that Gay Male Sex is one of God's Blessings? Because I would really, really like for somebody to explain to me how Sola Scriptura operated to bring us to this perverted conclusion.

Here's Catholic Answers explanation of Peter is Kepha, which means Rock, not pebble.

LINK

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by troyt37

Member since Mar 2008

13359 posts

Posted on 5/2/24 at 2:34 pm to Champagne

I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong on all 3 accounts. I just find the Catholic answer self-serving, and losing all context from the scripture.

Jesus asks "who do the people say that I am?"

quote:
13 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 they answer, saying some say you are John the Baptist, some say you are this guy, some say you are that guy.

quote:
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

And Jesus says, who do you all say I am?

quote:
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter says, you are the Christ, The Son of the living God.

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

And Jesus says, bless you Simon, flesh and blood hasn't revealed IT to you, but my Father in Heaven.

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

This makes the entire sequence contextually about IT. What is IT? IT is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God.

Now, with IT (his identity) established, Jesus says, and I also say to you that you are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build my church.

quote:
18 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.

Now, if Jesus wasn't referencing back to IT (his true identity as the Christ, Son of the living God) why wouldn't He have just said Peter, or thee, if he wasn't referencing back to IT.?

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board