Thou art Peter Firstborn & Stone: Janus Parallelism

[Alfred Persson]

My video says it all

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

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Alfred Persson]

I don't believe when Jesus said "this rock" he was refering to Peter; Jesus was refering to the one that Peter identified, namely himself (Jesus) the "Son of the living God".

"in normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the speaker and his interlocutor. Therefore, if this phrase here--contrary to syntax--is to be referred to Peter, some very good reasons for this anomaly will need to be presented. However, to date no one seems to have been able to produce any such reasons. Consequently, it must be firmly asserted that Greek syntax goes against the assumption that PETRA refers to PETROS, and since there is no valid explanation for this violation of syntax, it must be concluded that there are no objective grounds for referring PETRA to PETROS." -- Chrys Caragounis, Peter and the Rock, page 89

"'There are, among the ancient authors those who interpret SUPER HANC PETRAM to mean upon this faith, or upon this confession of faith, by which thou hast acknowledged Me to be the Son of God, as S. Hilary, S. Gregory of Nyssa, S. Chrystostom, and S. Cyril of Alexandria. S. Augustine, going even further, interprets SUPER HANC PETRAM to mean upon Me Myself, that is, upon Christ Himself, since Christ is the Rock. And Origen says that SUPER HANC PETRAM means upon all those who hold this faith'"-- Maldonatus (Jesuit commentator), Qt. in F.N. Oxenham, The Validity of Papal Claims, page 26.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS



Further reading:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989209#h=4

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015889#h=13

[marco]

I don't believe when Jesus said "this rock" he was refering to Peter; Jesus was refering to the one that Peter identified, namely himself (Jesus) the "Son of the living God".

The clever pun explains the otherwise unrelated "Thou art Peter." The explanation that the Church will be built on the rock that is Peter is eminently more sensible than: "Hi, you're called Peter but forget that -it's on THIS rock, ME, that I'll be building." This dismissive pronouncement does not accord with Christ's delight at what Peter had just said. Rock, Peter, foundation are all linked to Peter's sterling response. Nothing else makes RELEVANT sense.

[2timothy316]

I don't believe when Jesus said "this rock" he was refering to Peter; Jesus was refering to the one that Peter identified, namely himself (Jesus) the "Son of the living God".

The clever pun explains the otherwise unrelated "Thou art Peter." The explanation that the Church will be built on the rock that is Peter is eminently more sensible than: "Hi, you're called Peter but forget that -it's on THIS rock, ME, that I'll be building." This dismissive pronouncement does not accord with Christ's delight at what Peter had just said. Rock, Peter, foundation are all linked to Peter's sterling response. Nothing else makes RELEVANT sense.

Even Peter didn't claim to the the foundation. So evidently it didn't seem 'sensible' to him that he was the rock.

"Then Peter, filled with holy spirit, said to them: “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today about a good deed to a crippled man, and you want to know who made this man well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, whom you executed on a stake but whom God raised up from the dead, by means of him this man stands here healthy in front of you. This is ‘the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the chief cornerstone.’" Acts 4:8-11

Why didn't Peter point to himself as the 'chief cornerstone' if he was the rock? Also, Jesus was not dismissive of what Peter said and the faith Peter showed. In verse 19 of Matthew 16 Jesus honors Peter by letting him know that Jesus will be giving him the keys of the Kingdom. Yet a few verses down Peter is rebuked and called Satan. Are we to believe that Peter is both the head of the church and Satan?

[marco]

Even Peter didn't claim to the the foundation. So evidently it didn't seem 'sensible' to him that he was the rock.

Peter went ahead as leader, so he acted as though he had been given control. It is wrong to take a word from one metaphor and assume that it applies in the same way in another. Peter is of course not "the stone the builders rejected," as in the Psalm. But he is the stone on which Christ would found his Church. Different stones!

Yet a few verses down Peter is rebuked and called Satan. Are we to believe that Peter is both the head of the church and Satan?

This is a weak point. Of course Christ is not taking Peter as Satan but he was referring to Peter's way of looking at things. That would change with the fire of the Holy Spirit, when Peter would see things in a deeper way and become the stone on which Christ would build his Church.

As I said, this is a sensible interpretation. The only reason for rejecting it is that it accords with RC orthodoxy.

[2timothy316]

Even Peter didn't claim to the the foundation. So evidently it didn't seem 'sensible' to him that he was the rock.

Peter went ahead as leader,

Not the leader. No where does it say Peter is the one and only leader.
In fact the Bible says, “When there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.� (Acts 15:2)

It doesn't say that they went to Peter regarding a dispute. All of the apostles and older men were in charge not just one.

So your claim that 'Peter went ahead as leader' is unfounded. The Bible says Jesus is the foundation as it has already be brought out. "“The head of every man is the Christ;� (1 Corinthians 11:3) Not Peter.

[marco]

So your claim that 'Peter went ahead as leader' is unfounded. The Bible says Jesus is the foundation as it has already be brought out. "“The head of every man is the Christ;� (1 Corinthians 11:3) Not Peter.

Yes, we know there were disagreements and we know that Paul was recorded as being more articulate to the extent that he has been accused of usurping Jesus. From Christ's words to Peter: Flesh and blood did not tell you this, we know he was in a favoured position.

And it is not being disputed that Christ founded his Church. He left it in the care of those whom he had chosen, and Paul wasn't there. It is clear that his work would have to continue and his words appear to pass on the mission he started to Peter. It is inconceivable that his followers would be leaderless, for he "would not leave them orphans."

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.

[Checkpoint]

I don't believe when Jesus said "this rock" he was refering to Peter; Jesus was refering to the one that Peter identified, namely himself (Jesus) the "Son of the living God".

The clever pun explains the otherwise unrelated "Thou art Peter." The explanation that the Church will be built on the rock that is Peter is eminently more sensible than: "Hi, you're called Peter but forget that -it's on THIS rock, ME, that I'll be building." This dismissive pronouncement does not accord with Christ's delight at what Peter had just said. Rock, Peter, foundation are all linked to Peter's sterling response. Nothing else makes RELEVANT sense.

The rock Jesus was referring to was neither Peter no himself; it was not to any person.

Rather, it was to what you described, "Christ's delight at what Peter had just said. Rock, Peter, foundation are all linked to Peter's sterling response".

What Peter had voiced was faith in Christ, which is what the Church is built on.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

I agree with Marco in part, though I think it not incidental that the dominical declaration follows upon Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ. It is as Confessor that Peter is a rock.

[tam]

I don't believe when Jesus said "this rock" he was refering to Peter; Jesus was refering to the one that Peter identified, namely himself (Jesus) the "Son of the living God".

The clever pun explains the otherwise unrelated "Thou art Peter." The explanation that the Church will be built on the rock that is Peter is eminently more sensible than: "Hi, you're called Peter but forget that -it's on THIS rock, ME, that I'll be building." This dismissive pronouncement does not accord with Christ's delight at what Peter had just said. Rock, Peter, foundation are all linked to Peter's sterling response. Nothing else makes RELEVANT sense.

The rock Jesus was referring to was neither Peter no himself; it was not to any person.

Rather, it was to what you described, "Christ's delight at what Peter had just said. Rock, Peter, foundation are all linked to Peter's sterling response".

What Peter had voiced was faith in Christ, which is what the Church is built on.

Peace to you all!


It's a little bit of both.

Yes, Christ is the Rock. The cornerstone. The foundation. Yes, His Church is built upon Him. His Church (which is His BODY) HAS to be built upon Him. He is the foundation.

For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is [Jesus] Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light.


His church, however, is built WITH the FAITH that Peter showed (believing God who revealed to Peter that Jaheshua is the Messiah, the Son of God).

Christ is the Rock upon whom His Church is built, using the faith that Peter showed.


(And Peter was not the first person or even the first apostle to know and acknowledge Jaheshua as the Messiah, the Son of God. Read John 1:32 - 50)



Christ never raised Peter over the other apostles; and stated specifically that HE was their leader and teacher and master, but that they were ALL brothers; and they were all given power from on high (holy spirit); they all entered into a covenant where they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Indeed, Paul rebuked some for claiming to follow "Paul or Apollos or Peter". If Peter had truly been in charge, then this would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to have clarified that the one they should be listening to was Peter.


I've no doubt men came along and built a religion on Peter (the roman state religion of that time had a very similar heirarchy to the Roman Catholic Church); but that does not mean that CHRIST built His church on Peter.

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