Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism

[Alfred Persson]

My video says it all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRPUVpeLwA

[marco]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking Christ's words in the way we would naturally interpret them, otherwise: Thou art Peter and .... makes little relevant sense. You have not addressed this mystery.

Then I guess we are reading two different threads because I see many others addressing the 'mystery' and demystifying it.

Correction - when I made this post one other person, apart from you, had made a post. Check for yourself.

They are not looking to themselves or using their own interpretation they are looking back into the Bible for the answer. On the other hand we have those that pull out a few words and make a dogma out of it.

Yes, I agree that many make a dogma out of an ambiguous phrase. They are not looking into the Bible for an answer - they have constructed a modern belief system and they are searching for Biblical phrases that might support that system. They will discount any that suggest they are wrong, of course. I have no axe to grind.

Also, this 'natural interpretation' as you call it only works if the rest of the Bible is ignored. It ends up in truth being unnatural when words are taken out of context.

Not at all. 'Thou art Peter' is either a trivial identification of the apostle or it is the start of a pronouncement that makes the words meaningful. You choose the trivial here in the same way as you might choose the trivial interpretation of Christ's words on the cross: 'I tell you today - you shall be with me in paradise', as though the dying, exhausted Christ would inform the thief that he is speaking TODAY as opposed to yesterday. Again the natural interpretation is "today you shall be with me in paradise."

These natural interpretations are rejected because they cast doubt on some modern ideas of Christianity. I would rather question the new and let the Bible speak for itself.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I would rather question the new and let the Bible speak for itself.

But the Bible can’t speak. Like G.K. Chesterton said, “you can’t put the Bible on the witness stand.�

How does one go about letting the Bible speak for itself?

Obviously, Scripture needs interpreted – ahhhhh . . . so who has the authority to speak for (interpret) Scripture?

That is the question. And I guess one could say, that too comes down to faith. But it is important to point this out, less someone actually think all the answers are to be found in the Bible. That is inaccurate. The answers can be found in who or what was intended to be the arbiter of truth.

[marco]

But the Bible can’t speak. Like G.K. Chesterton said, “you can’t put the Bible on the witness stand.�

How does one go about letting the Bible speak for itself?

Pardon my obscurity, RightReason. My point was that when we read a simple sentence in the Bible and extract an obvious meaning we are not improving on what has been written nor changing the words. Some take a sentence and add meanings that are inspired by modern thought or by the dictates of their new religion. I was simply suggesting that we read what is in front of us rather than mess about with the words, as in the examples I quoted.

I do know the Bible isn't a talking book but doubtless somewhere we can purchase talking Bibles.

[tam]

He did say He would not leave them as orphans. But this is how He finished that statement:

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Peace to you, Tam.

Thank you Marco, and to you as well.

You offer this sentence as though it dismisses any suggestion that Jesus left Peter as the leader of his flock.

You said:

It is inconceivable that his followers would be leaderless, for he "would not leave them orphans."

So I offered that quote (in blue) as rebuttal to the suggestion that when Christ said, "I will not leave you as orphans", He meant that He would send other men to them, rather than coming Himself.

He IS their leader.

The Church that rose from Christ's teaching DOES claim that Christ will be with her all days, even to the end of the world.

Indeed.

But the Church is His Body; made up of people who belong to Him, with Him as their head.



He still does speak to multitudes. If those multitudes are listening to Him is another matter. Just as it would have been when He walked in the flesh.



Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 22 by RightReason]

But it is important to point this out, less someone actually think all the answers are to be found in the Bible. That is inaccurate. The answers can be found in who or what was intended to be the arbiter of truth.

What answers does "the arbiter of truth" bring to the table?

And just what is this "arbiter of truth" anyway?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

What answers does "the arbiter of truth" bring to the table?

Uuum . . . the truth.

And just what is this "arbiter of truth" anyway?

Who or whatever Christ said it is. And if I’m not mistaken, my Bible shows Christ saying,

"18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I 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.�

Then Scripture goes on to show the first Christians saw Peter and the disciples as Christ’s established church and took their matters to the Church. Scripture also goes on to call the Church the pillar and foundation of truth.

I guess that is what I mean by arbiter of truth.