Raymond E Brown SS (1928 – 1998) was an American Catholic priest, and one of the most prominent biblical scholars of the 20th century.
Categories: Catholic, New Testament scholarship
Raymond E Brown SS (1928 – 1998) was an American Catholic priest, and one of the most prominent biblical scholars of the 20th century.
Categories: Catholic, New Testament scholarship
Reblogged this on The Quran and Bible Blog and commented:
A top Christian scholar believed that the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was not authentic. More evidence that the Gospel of Matthew contains made-up stories.
This is a good point, I haven’t thought about it before. It strengthens the notion that hebrew religion of Jesus is never meant for the gentiles. Only later people corrupt the true Injeel to become something of a new religion about Jesus which was spread into (and influenced by) greco-roman pagan world.
Thanks for sharing.
Other top Christian NT scholars will disagree. What most top Christian NT scholars will agree on is likely to be unhistorical:
Jesus not being crucified. Jesus speaking immidiately after his birth. Jesus bringing clay birds to life. Jesus praying for a table with food from heaven, his mother being raised in the Temple, his mother receiving food from an angel …
In other words, scholars won’t agree on stories of miracles. Yaaaawn… great point UV!🙄
But that was good though…for a doorknob with a low IQ. You actually managed to out more than 2 coherent sentences together.
But you still have to work on making an actual valid point. Keep trying though! 😀
There is nothing miraculous in copy pasting miracle stories from apocryphal contemporary Christian sources. That’s what Historical scholars agree upon.
And now be a good boy be quiet and bring the slippers Pavlov arf arf.
LOL, UV sounds like a Christian apologist. “Apocryphal contemporary Christian sources”…blah, blah, blah. So if it was “copied” from the “canonical” Bible, then it would be okay?
Now be a good boy UV the doorknob and tell me, if the Quran was “copying” from other sources (whether “apocryphal” or not), then why does it correct the mistakes of those sources? Let’s see if you can put together a coherent rebuttal. Should I hold my breath?
But there is no textual evidence that this is a later addition/insertion. No textual variants that affect the Trinitarian formula.
The Didache, probably the earliest extant non-canonical Christian document, with a date range by most scholars of 70 AD-120 AD, has the Trinitarian formula twice (Didache 7:1, 7:3) and also the phrase “baptized into the name of the Lord” (Didache 9:5) – both are valid expressions for baptism – so Acts and Matthew 29:19 were both used and there is no evidence to doubt Matthew 28:19 as the words of Jesus.
“in the name of Jesus” and “in the name of the Lord” are shortened versions that also point to the truth of Jesus as Savior and Lord and imply His Deity, and the Deity of Christ automatically leads to the doctrine of the Trinity.
if Jesus taught his disciples to evangelize the gentiles why did Peter only discover this in Acts 10?
He did not “discover it” (as if Jesus did not say that), he just took a long time to overcome racial bias and prejudice. This is common in all human beings. It is difficult to cross cultural barriers and be with other people who have different customs and different languages. Fortunately, the Greek language was common for all in the Roman Empire, but later, as the gospel goes out, the missionaries had to learn other languages in order to communicate.
Because of their deep attitudes of separation and racial / ethnic bias and looking down on the Gentiles as “unclean” – نجس (Najesh = dirty, unclean). Peter knew, but it took him a long time to actually obey, because being around other cultures necessitated being around their customs and foods – Jesus in Acts 10-11 is giving Peter the same lesson He gave earlier in Mark 7:19-23 and rebuking racial hatred and an over the top attitude about “separation” from them.
So it took the best ‘Christian’ YEARS to overcome racism an disobeyed Jesus for YEARS and the discples COMPLETLY went against the FOUNDATION of Christianity which is that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrifices and they were still keeping it Jewish by having sacrifices for like what 10 years? And these are the ‘best people’ in that generation? The ones that go against the CORE teaching for 10 years? Peter is a racist for YEARS?
Have you ever heard of something like this?????
There is nothing miraculous in copy pasting miracle stories from apocryphal contemporary Christian sources. That’s what Historical scholars agree upon.
Agreed. The Qur’an denies real history. (Surah 4:157); did not know what Christians already believed about the Trinity for centuries (5:116; 4:171; 5:72-78; 19:88-92; 6:101) [which proves God did not inspire the Qur’an) and got most of it’s other material from apocryphal gospels, Gnostic ideas and sources, Jewish Midrash sources, legends (the cave of seven sleepers) and other dubious things going around verbally in Arabia.
The Qur’an is the true “Frankenstein book” – as Stewjo004 likes to say.
@ Ken
Lol, you’re mad because you couldn’t refute me.
But anyways so you just called Peter a racist who is the foundation of your religion. Wow. just wow.
Jesus is the foundation. Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God is foundational.
1 Corinthians 3:11 – Jesus is the foundation
1 Corinthians 10:4 – and the rock was Christ
Ephesians 2:19-20 – the church is built upon the foundation of the writings of the apostles (NT) and prophets (OT) – which both point to Christ. “Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.”
But Peter had to grow spiritually, as we all do. (that is why Jesus deliberately took the disciples into Gentile territory in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 to test them to see if they learned about pride in the heart and food and culture. Eventually, he and the other disciples’ overcame their racial pride. He overcame it in Acts 10-11 and Galatians 2 – overcoming sin is a process – it is not a quick, “name it claim it” type thing.
I am not angry at you – it is clear that your book is the “Frankenstein book”, because of the dubious sources and mistakes, even denying established history and Allah not knowing what Christians believed for centuries.
@ Atlas
My thoughts exactly. This is literally THEE generation that studied underneath the prophet and DIRECTLY learned the message from him. Because remember it’s not only Peter but James(aka Yacoob) and the rest who were against this. So if according to him if their FOUNDATION was this terrible (and authobillah btw we actually believe in and follow the Disciples) how much more evil are the rest of them?
The OBVIOUS reality is that the Jesus didn’t preach all that mumbo jumbo these xtians claim he did. I mean for God’s sake if the best teachers and examples for mankind after Jesus (chosen by Jesus) can’t even get the MAIN doctrine straight and fail miserably because (their jewish) tradition gets the better of them then what good are they???
@ Atlas
It really is obvious lol. I mean your FOUNDATIONAL guys not being able to get something right doctrinally is FAR more damning then ANYTHING critical scholarship could come up with.
Contrary to missionary claims like Ken it has NOTHING to do with “liberal scholarship” (we would have believed the same whether they were there or no. All they did was be a neutral source that confirmed what we knew. Seriously our scholars wrote on the lack of sources LONG before those guys came along).
We as Muslims jut have a clear understanding of the stages of the Message and tracing things. Like for example the article that is up Ken’s craw because he can’t refute it is this one where I breakdown source Biblical sources and what we believe in from them:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/
It’s not that I’m “smarter” I just know what stages Islam goes through. When you’re looking at this greek pagan background where extremism is RAMPANT and no one checks sources you can see where issues arise. It’s just such a hot mess it’s hard to peel back the Message. I have some solid parts figured out (like what is the Injeel) but there are still “wildcards” in there I can’t figure out (and probably won’t barring any more discoveries)
@ Ken
Lol, you’re so salty. Showing the Frankenstein nature of your book really hurt your feelings which is why you’ve been biting my line ever since. Anyways:
…17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 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.”… (Matt 16:1-18)
I’ll save you some time before you spout your protestant crap:
Peter is clearly the Rock for 2 reasons:
1. He is named from Simon son of Jonah to Peter by Jesus
2. Petras is rock and is related to the name Peter
And you are just insulting the Disciples left and right and it is really bad. Just please stop talking.
LOL, there goes Pennywise again…
So Paul clearly contradicted Jesus, didn’t he? In fact, he contradicted him in almost every way. Jesus says Peter is the “rock”, but along comes Paul, and he says “no, Jesus the rock! I know because I am a super apostle!”
Maybe Paul thought that the mangod was getting senile and couldn’t be trusted with ensuring the future of the religion in the hands of an incompetent “racist”. So he had to fix the mistake.
@ QB
Basically… EVERYBODY was a racist except Apostle Paul.
It is peters confession that Jesus is the Messiah the son of the living God that is what the rock of foundational doctrine is.
But he is the rock, contrary to Paul assertion. So Paul contradicted your mangod.
The passage in Matthew clearly states Peter is the Rock on which his church is built. Even your own evangelical scholars like RT France admit this. The Roman Catholics are right on this issue. You are wrong.
R. T. France, like D.A. Carson, show that one can take Peter as the rock foundation, based on his confession of faith, without the other Romanism / Papist anachronistic understandings of jurisdictional authority, infallibility, guarantee of passing down some sort of anointing to the successors in an unbroken chain that propogates ex opere operato powers automatically.
Bringing out one of those links; on the exegesis of the passage.
https://bible.org/seriespage/1-exegetical-examination-matthew-1618
Exegetical arguments are clearly on the Protestant (and even Eastern Orthodox ) side of the argument.
https://bible.org/seriespage/1-exegetical-examination-matthew-1618
From the exegesis link above by Brittney Burnette. She also interacts with R. T. France.
“However, the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the πέτρα in no way endorses a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s successors. In fact, the text states nothing about Peter’s successor, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority over the Church.123 Peter’s privilege of being the “rock” is historically unrepeatable.124
123 Carson, Matthew, 368.
124 Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990), 581.
Respected evangelical scholar RT France agrees with Roman Catholics when they say the passage in Matthew states that Peter as a man is the Rock on which his church is built.
So you are wrong.
Even if Peter was the Rock, which I have no problem with, it does not mean he was the only one. All the apostles preached the gospel. Maybe Peter was more used of God than the others and this is why he was given the name in advance.
This does not give any room for the misuse that the Roman Catholics have made out of this scripture.
The writer of Luke does not have to use the actual baptismal formula which was used in the baptisms. He just uses the word Jesus as a substitute or equivalent for this name.
Allow me to translate for Iggy: blah, blah, blah…stupid excuses…blah, blah, blah…
Iggy, your silly explanation contradicts your mangod. Why are you such a heretic?
Your mangod said that he would build his “church” on “this rock”, not on any other “rock”. Moreover, only Peter was specifically praised to the point that Jesus gave him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”.
Finally, notice that only Peter answered Jesus when he asked “who do you say I am”. The other disciples were there, but only Peter answered. So it’s clear that Peter was the “rock”. There were no others. This is what your mangod said, but since you are such a good worshiper of Paul, you are willing to throw even your mangod under the bus to keep yourself from condemning the false apostle.
Your mangod used the metaphor of a “rock” elsewhere in Matthew as well:
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.” (Matthew 7:25-25)
Here is a little challenge for you Iggy: where does it say in your NT that there were other “rocks” among the disciples? Any where?
Since I know you won’t be able to meet this challenge, the question then is why did Jesus select such an unqualified and incompetent “racist” as Peter to be the “rock” of the his church? It doesn’t seem very wise of your mangod does it?
@ QB
They will not answer because again even though the context is clearly Simon who is then named “the Rock” in the verse and has his virtues praised by the man himself, in their fan fiction:
“No he’s not the rock our statements of idolatry are (despite no proof for this).”
But hey “Super Apostle” Paul says he’s a hypocrite so that is now the gospel truth. The guy who learned directly from Jesus and is validated by him is apparently a racist who had to learn Jesus’s “true” teachings from Paul who never met the man.
There’s something about Christians and circles that I just can’t put my finger on…🤔
@ QB
Does it have something to do with “talking” perhaps?
But the power of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit helped the Jewish disciples and also all others who are true believers in Christ, to overcome their racial prejudice in their hearts.
Mark 7:19-23
Acts chapters 10-11
Revelation 5:9
Revelation 7:9
Galatians 3:28
I Corinthians 12:13
Ephesians 2:11-22
it was the enmity (hatred) in the human heart that was abolished by the atonement / cross of Christ, not the moral law itself.
The church of Jesus was built upon the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of the Living God, which Peter confessed. (Matthew 16:13-19) That truth points to and leads to the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship, and the Trinity.
His confession of faith is the rock foundation. Peter was a foundation for the rest of the disciples. And the apostolic authority was for all the disciples – Matthew 18:15-20 – and as long as subsequent generations held to correct doctrine, that is true apostolic succession – passing on right doctrine and holding to it.
not some kind of “magic” automatic ex opere operato priestly powers that the Roman Catholics anachronistically claim.
Pleas, save your apologetic BS to yourself. Even your mangod was a racist. Gentiles were dogs to him. So the racism problem started with your god.
Don’t worry; you don’t get anything except rebuke. You are not credible and an ugly character, Faiz.
Oh Pennywise, you whiny ugly clown! You are a laughing stock, and no one takes you seriously. You are here for our fun, so we can humiliate you as the self-righteous hypocrite that you are.
Jesus Said All the Apostles Had Equal Authority
While Jesus had the chance to put in place some sort of leadership structure among His apostles, He did not. In fact, He clearly stated that the apostles had the same level of authority—none was considered above the other.
Jesus said the following to all of the apostles:
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18 ESV)
The word “you” here is in the plural; it is not referring to one particular person. All of them were given the unique authority of the Lord because of their personal relationship with Him.
[This passage is very important, because it is THE passage on church authority that is the next passage about church after the famous Matthew 16:13-19 passage about Peter’s confession as the rock of truth.] (me, Ken Temple’s comment )
In an answer to a question by Peter, Jesus said that each of the twelve apostles would rule in His kingdom:
Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:27-28 ESV)
From a very thorough article by Don Stewart:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-ultimate-authority/question5-did-jesus-give-peter-authority-to-speak.cfm
@ Ken
A simple question to refute this new Protestant nonsense. Was Simon’s name changed to Peter (Rock) when Jesus said what the Church is founded on a rock? Just need a yes or no?
Yes, Jesus is making a word-play on Petra (Rock foundation, bedrock) vs. Petros (his name – a smaller rock)
But that does not refute “Protestant non-sense”, since the issue is the truth doctrine that Peter spoke – that Jesus is Messiah and the Son of God.
Peter is a leader, yes, the most dominant and outspoken one in the Gospels, but the same power to bind and loose in Matthew 16 is given to all the apostles and church leaders in Matthew 18:15-20 and all evangelists/ believers in John 20:23; but not some kind of “bishop over all other bishops” for the whole world, as the Roman Catholic Church anachronistically applied to him CENTURIES Later.
If a future elder (presbuteros) / bishop / overseer (episcopos) does not hold onto the apostolic doctrine, then there is no automatic chain that passes down some kind of magical power as the Roman Catholic claims. Doctrine is key, not the person.
There is no such thing as one universal bishop over all other bishops.
87 bishops, Cyprian, Firmillian all testified against bishop of Rome Stephen in 257-258 against that claim.
“For no one has the right to set themselves up as bishop of bishops . . . ”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
@ Ken
So much Protestant nonsense let’s read the passage:
…17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 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.”… (Matt 16:17-18)
He is CLEARLY being named the rock aka the Foundation. Using another passage for more evidence:
40Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard John’s testimony and followed Jesus. 41He first found his brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated as Christ).
42Andrew brought him to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated as Peter). (John 1:40-42)
Meaning according to the text Jesus named him the rock aka the foundation. The argument of things being applied anachronistically can pretty much be applied to all of Christendom so that argument means nothing. Peter will be the Church’s rock. There would be no reason whatsoever to name him the rock otherwise.
The only reason why you make this argument now is your sect wanted to break from the Pope’s oppressive (but quite frankly rightful) authority. You are a simply one of the many heresies of Christendom that got out of control (mostly due to King Henry) as this wouldn’t have spread to the colonies which in turn have shaped your beliefs. BUT text for text Peter has been made the undisputed leader of the Church.
Problem is that you ignored the context of Matthew 16 which flows into Jesus’ rebuke of Peter about the cross immediately and then in chapter 18:15-20, when speaking of how church authority is carried out, the plural of “you” for all the apostles in church – hence for all church leaders, rightly practiced, shows that Peter was not above them in authority; along with all the other evidence you ignored.
A Thorough study of Matthew 16:13-19:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/study-of-matthew-16/
@ Ken
Before I start reading as I would like to save some time, do any of these articles explain Jesus(as) naming the Simon the Rock in the same context? Just need a yes or no.
Yes.
yes, but without all the RC centuries later anachronistic reading of infallible successors, ex opere operato guaranteed powers into the future, jurisdictional authority over all other apostles, etc.
Paul W. mentioned R. T. France – same for D. A. Carson – they show that there is a way to understand Peter as the rock, in accordance with his statement of faith about Jesus, without the other things about the Papacy that RC read into the passage, centuries later.
Kenny gets nuked again!
So we can see that Peter wasn’t even the first one to identify Jesus as the Messiah and yet was identified as the rock.
I ignore you. you Faiz are a waste of time. At least Stewjo004 has some manners.
Whatever you say Pennywise! I will still mock and humiliate you. And stew will continue to refute youn as well. Your humiliation will continue either way. 🤣
Yes, your mocking is your low character, rather than proper argumentation.
No, no Pennywise. Mocking comes with sound arguments. I don’t argue like you: “nope, you’re wrong…blah, blah, blah…”
Run Pennywise, run. You feel that emotion? That’s fear you’re sensing. 😱
Not at all; you are weak pitiful character. You have no moral character or credibility.
Sure, sure Pennywise. Your pathetic whining only further shows what a pitiful character you are. When you are faced with facts and reason, you show that you are a biased clown who can never engage in a fair discussion. You apply double standards and then pretend that you are interested in a rational discussion. And then when you are called out for your self-righteous hypocrisy and pathetic double standards, you start whining like a little girl.
The only reason why you make this argument now is your sect wanted to break from the Pope’s oppressive (but quite frankly rightful) authority.
how was that rightful, when an office of the Pope (a mono-Roman bishop being the bishop over all other bishops in the whole world) did not even exist for centuries?
Even the Eastern Orthodox and other Oriental Orthodox churches agree with us on this issue.
The Coptic church has their own “Pope” (papa).
All ministers (presbyters / elders / bishops/ overseers/ pastors) in the early church were called “father” in Latin, but that did not mean they were a bishop over all the other bishops – it just mean “spiritual father” or “spiritual mentor”
@ Ken
Which article of the six discusses Peter’s name?
https://bible.org/seriespage/1-exegetical-examination-matthew-1618
Guys let’s all calm down pls. We might not like Ken’s arguments but he is right about one thing:
And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong; and say (to them): “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims).”
Quran (Surah Al-Ankaboot, Verse 46)
So let’s all be reasonable. Surely we’re not incompetent we can’t even obey this verse (that includes you too Ken).
Brother yes, but when you are dealing with trash, you need to treat it like trash. Don’t forget the bolded part:
And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong; and say (to them): “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims).”
Plus, we are beyond dawah with characters like Temple. We are defending our faith against their propaganda so that others might benefit. You will see the extent of his deception and lies, if you haven’t already seen it, in my next article. I am responding to one of his pathetic articles right now. The amount of pompous arrogance and deceit is quite high in this little twerp.
As for giving dawah to normal people, of course, you would talk to them in a gentle way.
@ QB
Unrelated question how do you bold on a blog post?
Like this:
Except with no spaces.
I don’t know why it didn’t include what I typed out. Basically it’s the symbols. And then use back slash and close with >
Stew, I emailed you the code.
@ QB
Thanks
/Test>
Lol, it didn’t work. You have to use before the text, write the text, then close with the same except add back slash and lowercase b, like this /b, inside the brackets.
For some reason, the comments do not include the brackets when you type them out so I cant show you how to type it out.
/btest>
The same question here. How can we make a bold and Italic font?
(Test:
.
Test
Word
Take out the &
Did not work
@ Ken
Okay I finished the article and this right quote here more or less sums up this claim:
“While the argument from Aramaic would work well in proving that the πέτρα in question is Peter, it is by no means certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic here.80 Given the distinct possibility that Jesus may have spoken Greek here, and given the fact that Matthew’s verses are in the Greek, one might do well to stick to a Greek understanding of the πέτρα-Πέτρος word-play. If this is done, a wide variety of interpretations may be obtained.”
Basically, let’s ignore his most likely language which makes it clear it is referring to Peter and switch it over to Greek so we can open up many interpretations to pick and choose whatever we like from them. He(as) spoke Aramaic, not playing this game. Even in the article itself:
“However, other scholars (such as Keener, Carson, and Ridderbos) argue that the πέτρα is Peter. Against Caragounis, Ridderbos argues that the difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος is rather insignificant. He asserts:
The most likely explanation for the change from petros (“Peter”) to petra is that petra was the normal word for “rock.” Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but Petros. The word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra, as it literally meant “stone.” Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the church. The words “on this rock [petra]” indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church. Only Peter is mentioned in this verse, and the pun on his name of course applied to him alone.91
Cullman agrees with Ridderbos’ assessment. He also maintains that since the word πέτρα is feminine in the Greek and has a feminine ending (-α), the New Testament chose a less usual when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the church. There is no good reason to Greek word which had the masculine ending (-ος) for the apostle: Πέτρος.92 Cullman goes on to state that there is no essential difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος, for even though πέτρα denoted a “live rock” and Πέτρος meant a “detached stone,” the distinction was not strictly observed.93 In several instances, πέτρα is used with the meaning “piece of rock” or “stone.”94”
So the two words have no significant difference and the wordplay is obvious in Aramaic thus defeating the first half of the article which makes it’s an entire argument about two “different” words being used. More significantly the article concedes:
“If Peter’s confession of faith is the “rock,” then why did Jesus not say “upon this faith” or “upon your words” I will build my Church? According to R. T. France, it is overreaction against the papal claims of the Roman Catholic Church that has inspired some Protestants to view the “rock” as Peter’s faith rather than the man.97”
As I said earlier, it is simply the heretic Protestants (reality Lutherans) who are now trying to apply a deviant interpretation to the obvious meaning of the verse.
I mean even without me ever studying the grammar the article is literally saying the same thing I said again quoting:
It should also be noted that in v. 17, Jesus refers to the apostle as “Simon”. In v. 18, though, Jesus specifically refers to Simon as Peter, the nickname that he had previously given the apostle. If Peter is not in view, why would Jesus deliberately use a word that almost mirrored the apostle’s name? Considering that this is the only place in the entire New Testament corpus in which πέτρα and Πέτρος are used in the same verse, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus was not in some way referring to Peter. This could very well be a case of paronomasia, which is common in the Bible and should not be belittled.99 The only logical explanation is that there is some relationship between the two, and Jesus wanted to make that connection known.
Furthermore, Keener asserts that Jesus does not say, “You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church”; the adversative δε sometimes means “and” but the copulative και almost always means “and” (with a few exceptions).100 It is true that 16:18 is quite reminiscent of 7:24-27 and ultimately, Jesus’ teaching is the foundation for disciples (1 Cor 3:11), but in this verse, Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Eph 2:20-21.101 If all the apostles and prophets are seen as rocks, does that diminish the unique blessing to Peter? Not at all. Although the apostles may be “rocks” in one sense, Peter is “the rock” in special sense.
So basically if I wanted to breakdown and refute the “faith” argument the equivalent in Arabic is Jesus(as) saying sakhra (rock) and AL-Hajar (THEE Foundation stone) in his sentence. The heretics are attempting to argue two different words are being used therefore they don’t apply to one another.
1. Wordplay is in use
2. Him(as) adding the definitive article makes no room for doubt Peter(ra) is THEE foundation.
Since this is essentially the argument, the “faith” people’s reasoning is poor and shows a lack of understanding of Semitic language. The guy who wrote this article pretty much knows that but is trying to be nice which is why he says:
“However, the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the πέτρα in no way endorses a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s successors. In fact, the text states nothing about Peter’s successor, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority over the Church.123”
I agree because at the end of the day all these deviants in my eyes twist the text to say what they like. However, this strengthens my original contention Peter THEE Foundation Stone given authority by Jesus(as) to build the believer’s organization disagreed with Paul who has nothing and then Paul called him a hypocrite (one of the worse insults btw). So, in conclusion, we have two options:
1. All major Disciples including Peter who was given authority by Jesus(as) himself AND Jesus’s(as) brother are racist hypocrites according to your interpretation.
Or
2. Paul was an extremist who didn’t know what he was talking about which is my interpretation.
Given his prior reputation of extremism (s per the time period), going to Arabia beforehand and lack of authority I know who I’m comfortable with. Become a Muslim Ken.
Certainly, though, questions have been raised regarding this interpretation. After all, if Peter is the “rock” in question, and if he is given a position of preeminence, the question of the disciples as to who would have that place (18:1) seems inexplicable.112 Moreover, in 16:19, Peter is given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and the authority to loose and bind things on earth; this would seem to imply preeminence, but in 18:18, this authority is given to all the apostles. Surely, Jesus has not forgotten his own words! If such an authority is given to all of the apostles, then it would seem unlikely that Jesus is referring to Peter as the πέτρᾳ. In light of these factors, does the argument hold that the πέτρᾳ is pointing to Peter?
These questions do bring up valid points. It is true that the other disciples were also given the “keys,” and it is true that the disciples later inquire about “who is the greatest.” Despite the fact that Peter was probably voicing the belief of all of the disciples, it was still he who so emphatically declared their conviction.113
. . .
However, the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the πέτρα in no way endorses a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter’s successors. In fact, the text states nothing about Peter’s successor, papal infallibility, or exclusive authority over the Church.123 Peter’s privilege of being the “rock” is historically unrepeatable.124 Understood in its original sense, Jesus assigns the apostle a unique and unrepeatable position in the spiritual edifice of God.125
. . .
Summary:
While some exegetes and theologians assert that the πέτρα of this verse points to Jesus or the confession of Peter, the deliberate use of the πέτρα-Πέτρος pun in 16:18, the only verse in the entire NT that contains both words, seems to indicate the Jesus specifically singled out the apostle Simon Peter as the “rock” in question. Peter is not given this position because he is inherently worthy; instead, he receives this title because he confessed his faith in the Messiah. ”
. . .
“because he confessed his faith in the Messiah” – Peter is the rock in relation to the foundation truth of the doctrine that he confessed and testified to, which God the Father revealed to him in his heart, the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. It is that doctrine that is the foundation of the church after Peter – as long as subsequent churches hold to that faith, they are true churches – Jesus as Messiah and Son of God point to the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, as foundational doctrines that churches are build upon.
Become a Muslim Ken.
Why? the rest of the book of Matthew is an extension of that “foundational rock” teaching – Matthew 18:15-20; chapters 26, 27, 28 – trial, death, resurrection, great commission to all nations, etc. (beautiful truth) and the rest of the NT shows the superiority of the doctrine that the NT and OT are truth and by logic, means Islam is wrong.
1. All major Disciples including Peter who was given authority by Jesus(as) himself AND Jesus’s(as) brother are racist hypocrites according to your interpretation.
No – they over-came their human sin of racial prejudice by the power of the Holy Spirit working in their hearts and they grew in holiness – Acts 10-11 and Mark 7:19-23 and the teachings in Ephesians 2:11-22 and Colossians 3:10-11 and Revelation 5:9, 7:9 demonstrate this.
@ Ken
I’ll be honest, it’s not difficult for me (as you know how I feel about these books, this speech is strange for a variety of reasons such as its abruptness in the passage, early Christians still using Synagogues and the mention of tax collectors whom Jesus(as) is said to be cool with) but I can reconcile these:
Being able to bind and loose on earth/ heaven, etc is two points:
1. Earth
The decision is binding on the person after coming to the Church’s court and is a ruling for other believers.
2. Heaven
If the Disciples make a unanimous agreement it is a form of revelation (this is similar to the Companions in Islam) basically God guided the ruling.
This appears to be talking about their authority on Jurisprudence rulings imo but this still does not contradict anything about Peter. As noted in the article, yes other Disciples were rocks but they were not THEE Rock. Think like the stone altars that Jacob(as) built. All the stones create an altar but there’s ONE stone that holds all in place (in this case that stone is Peter).
The Disciples were not racist. Jesus’s(as) message was only for the Children of Israel which why they were upset as Paul was doing something that was not authorized by Jesus(as). At BEST I can say James used a reasoned opinion with the use the laws of Bnei Noach but its hard because I have no writings from them about the subject. But I’m positive they had no idea what Paul was teaching. And God knows best.
Finally, none of the last points you mentioned are proof of superiority. The books are filled with issues and one can easily pick apart historical inaccuracies, contradictions in the story, theology and prophecy. Thus is one of the many ways to prove Christianity is false.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/top-8-contentions-against-the-crucifixion-part-i/
The love of God
The fatherhood of God
The incarnation
The humility and character of Christ
The atonement in the cross for the forgiveness of sin through repentance and faith apart from the merit of works, but not apart from the evidence and resulting works after true faith.
The powerful resurrection of Christ
The ascension, session and intercession of Christ at the right hand of the Father, praying and interceding for us
The power of the indwelling Holy Spirit
the diagnosis of human hearts of sin / emphasis on the internal roots (Mark 7:20-23) vs. the emphasis in Islam on external behavior and rituals
All of these things make Christianity vastly superior to the false 600 year late man-made religion of Islam.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/the-result-of-a-man-made-religion-with-no-love-no-atonement-no-concept-of-the-fatherhood-of-god/
Also the unjust wars and conquering of Islam vs. Byzantine and Persia and constant continuation of that principle in history until they were stopped – demonstrates that Christianity is superior in character to Islam.
Also the scandal of Muhammad’s ad hoc revelations and the incident of Zaynab Bint Jahash, getting rid of adoption, etc.
These are also ugly things that discredit your religion.
@ Ken
Just because we don’t call God “Daddy” does not mean we do not believe in God’s love. There is nothing in this name that is not encompassed in God’s names in Islam so you’re making a big deal ot of something that is not even unique to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5fC9QlPCW8
God does not need to humiliate himself and I’m nice with you but if Jesus(as) was a god he would quite frankly be a laughable one to me. He would be at a lesser level than most the pagan gods, and it is not befitting of God to be humiliated or become a human.
God forgives through repentance nothing unique there and doesn’t need a cross He forgave long before it. We don’t believe in salvation through works so again not unique.
Muhammad(saw) intercedes for mankind and his nation again doesn’t mean anything to me.
There are a variety of things about the heart and purifying it in Islam again nothing unique.
In a few days, the refutation of “the unjust wars” to ironically 2 of the most oppressive empires the world has ever seen will be refuted in the next coming days. So keep an eye out.
All revelations are by necessity, for example, Moses and the tribe of Manasseh in Numbers:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/the-concept-of-abrogation-in-scripture/
He did not get rid of adoption. Taking care of orphans is a MAJOR virtue in Islam. God forbade, changing people’s lineages and there’s a BIG DIFFERENCE.
Finally, nothing is forbidden about the marriage with Zainab(ra). These men are not related by blood and never will be no matter what people say, which is the point. That’s just reality whether you accept it or not.