How did the early church view "Peter as the rock"?

[Lanman87]

Linked is a fairly short video by Dr. Gavin Ortlund.

Link

There has been some discussion on this passage recently so I just wanted to get the opinion of those interested in this topic.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Linked is a fairly short video by Dr. Gavin Ortlund.

Link

There has been some discussion on this passage recently so I just wanted to get the opinion of those interested in this topic.

Sorry, but It's all theology and words of people who weren't there. Have you looked over my evidence presented that those words were never stated by Jesus?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I had some time early this morning and listened to the rest of it. He makes some good points and were I not convinced that the evidence proves Matthew 16:18-19 to be a false teacher edit to allow them to take over the Church of Jesus Christ, I would be more in line with his thoughts.

He brought up Apostolic succession and as he talked about it, some of my conclusions supporting the Church takeover came to mind. Apostolic succession was part of the takeover to ensure total control of the Church forever. The term "Apostle" was created by those same false teachers to give them an avenue for this succession. Jesus selected twelve disciples--he never commissioned "apostles" to be his eyewitnesses. But, if "apostles" could speak the word of God, then the false teachers as successors to the apostles could also speak the word of God.

From the WEB, the term "apostle" is only mentioned twice in Matthew and Mark. It is never mentioned in the Gospel of John. The term "apostle" is used in the Gospel of Matthew to introduce the twelve disciples. If Matthew wrote the Gospel, then there is verification and validation of Peter being assigned by Jesus to lead the Church, Peter walking on water, and the term "apostle" is accepted as applying to the disciples. However, evidence proves that a religious leader with connections to the Pharisees wrote that Gospel (a prime example to consider is how did Matthew witness Judas throwing the coins and repenting?). Nicodemus was the Pharisee that wrote the Gospel of Matthew and copied those sections of Gospel from Mark's author. Mark's author did not document Jesus assigning Peter, Peter walking on water, or the term apostle being used to describe disciples. You can validate this for yourself if you do a comparison.

Mark's author mention the term "apostle" only once in the WEB:

29 When his disciples heard this, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb. 30 The apostles gathered themselves together to Jesus, and they told him all things, whatever they had done, and whatever they had taught. 31 He said to them, “You come apart into a deserted place, and rest awhile.” For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. 32 They went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves.

I included the verses around that verse in Mark 6 because the term "apostle" is embedded in a verse that doesn't fit. Prior to that verse, the disciples are described as a follow-up to the previous section, then BTW, this weird verse tells you that apostles went to Jesus and told him all these things. Who, what, where, when, and why? That verse has no lead-in or exit; it makes no sense. Since that verse makes no sense and it supports the term "apostle," and the term "apostle" supports the false teacher takeover of the Church, it fits the profile for corrupted Gospel.
The term "apostle" is then normalized through Luke, Acts, and the rest of the New Testament letters, which BTW none of these are proven through Deuteronomy to be the word of God. As validation and verification of the corruption promoted by the term "apostle," Jesus warned you about the usage of it:

“I know your works, and your toil and perseverance, and that you can’t tolerate evil men, and have tested those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and found them false. (Revelation 2:2)

The numerous English translations of this verse do not limit the term apostles to some of them, It is a reference to ALL apostles. Jesus was warning you about the corruption to come. Yes in the WEB, the term "apostle" is referred to two more times, but you must ask yourself, why did Jesus warn about the use of the term, and why is it in the Revelation book a few more times, then spread throughout the New Testament, but not in the eyewitness testimony Gospels? There is a reason for John never using that term in his eyewitness testimony--it didn't exist until it was created years after the Gospel eyewitness testimonies were written.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Sorry, but It's all theology and words of people who weren't there. Have you looked over my evidence presented that those words were never stated by Jesus?

Are you saying, JustTheFacts, that this part of Matthew is lying to us by saying that Jesus said it? If you're right (and I disagree with you), aren't you taking away from Scripture's inspiration and possibly saying that God was lying to us by arriving at that conclusion? Interestingly, it would be denying the truth that Nicodemus writes (according to your own claim, with which I also disagree).

I tend to think that Jesus was referring to Peter's faith as "this rock," because shortly after Peter's confession of Jesus to be the Messiah, he shows that he believed Jesus would be an earthly king by kicking the Romans out of Palestine like the other Jews by disagreeing, as Satan's agent, with Jesus about his prediction of his death and resurrection. I don't think that it was Peter himself that Jesus was referring to, but there must have been some element of faith in Peter's confession, though.

Mar 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”
Mar 8:30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.
Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mar 8:32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

 

[JustTheFacts]

Are you saying, JustTheFacts, that this part of Matthew is lying to us by saying that Jesus said it?

Examine another section in John when Peter makes the same comment and Jesus responds by talking about false teachers. There is ample evidence proving that to be an addition to the Gospel and God did not approve it but he did predict it would happen,.

If you're right (and I disagree with you), aren't you taking away from Scripture's inspiration and possibly saying that God was lying to us by arriving at that conclusion? Interestingly, it would be denying the truth that Nicodemus writes (according to your own claim, with which I also disagree).

God didn't lie to us, false teachers inserted it and had people believe it by covering it up.

I tend to think that Jesus was referring to Peter's faith as "this rock," because shortly after Peter's confession of Jesus to be the Messiah, he shows that he believed Jesus would be an earthly king by kicking the Romans out of Palestine like the other Jews by disagreeing, as Satan's agent, with Jesus about his prediction of his death and resurrection. I don't think that it was Peter himself that Jesus was referring to, but there must have been some element of faith in Peter's confession, though.

Mar 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”
Mar 8:30 And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.
Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mar 8:32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Peter was told that Jesus was the Messiah by his brother Andrew before he met Jesus. Why would this be such a big deal that Jesus would reward him for that statement? It was common knowledge that Jesus was considered the Messiah--he even claimed it to the Pharisees.

The author of Matthew never used the term Simon Peter to refer to Peter, but in that verse he did. This is also an indication of fraud. Why did John record such a different reaction by Jesus to Peter's comment?

 

[BruceLeiter]

Examine another section in John when Peter makes the same comment and Jesus responds by talking about false teachers. There is ample evidence proving that to be an addition to the Gospel and God did not approve it but he did predict it would happen,.

God didn't lie to us, false teachers inserted it and had people believe it by covering it up.

Peter was told that Jesus was the Messiah by his brother Andrew before he met Jesus. Why would this be such a big deal that Jesus would reward him for that statement? It was common knowledge that Jesus was considered the Messiah--he even claimed it to the Pharisees.

The author of Matthew never used the term Simon Peter to refer to Peter, but in that verse he did. This is also an indication of fraud. Why did John record such a different reaction by Jesus to Peter's comment?

All the 10,000 manuscripts, early and late include the Gospel of Matthew and all parts of it. No false teachers included any of it. The only variations are minor ones that do not affect the teachings and history of the Bible.

Examine another section in John when Peter makes the same comment and Jesus responds by talking about false teachers. There is ample evidence proving that to be an addition to the Gospel and God did not approve it but he did predict it would happen,.

God didn't lie to us, false teachers inserted it and had people believe it by covering it up.

Peter was told that Jesus was the Messiah by his brother Andrew before he met Jesus. Why would this be such a big deal that Jesus would reward him for that statement? It was common knowledge that Jesus was considered the Messiah--he even claimed it to the Pharisees.

The author of Matthew never used the term Simon Peter to refer to Peter, but in that verse he did. This is also an indication of fraud. Why did John record such a different reaction by Jesus to Peter's comment?

Where is your proof that false teachers included anything in the Bible?

 

[JustTheFacts]

All the 10,000 manuscripts, early and late include the Gospel of Matthew and all parts of it. No false teachers included any of it. The only variations are minor ones that do not affect the teachings and history of the Bible.

So if there were 10,000 manuscripts that claimed the earth was flat you would believe it too?
You probably see no issues with the resurrection accounts that need explaining too.

Where is your proof that false teachers included anything in the Bible?

Read and study prophecy and the words of Jesus and you will see the truth. I'll help you if you want it.

 

[BruceLeiter]

So if there were 10,000 manuscripts that claimed the earth was flat you would believe it too?
You probably see no issues with the resurrection accounts that need explaining too.

Read and study prophecy and the words of Jesus and you will see the truth. I'll help you if you want it.

No, all the resurrection accounts confirm that Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact; the eyewitnesses convinced me of it to provide God's basis for my faith when I was 16.

Okay, show me step-by-step from prophecy and Jesus' words why you believe that false teachers took over the early church and altered Scripture.

 

[JustTheFacts]

No, all the resurrection accounts confirm that Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact; the eyewitnesses convinced me of it to provide God's basis for my faith when I was 16.

Actually, not all the resurrection accounts are valid. I am in the last stages of my analysis and there are five valid ones and the others are false teacher edits. There is an interesting key provided by the Holy Spirit that allows the truth to be separated from the false teacher edits. In summary though, the valid resurrection accounts prove Jesus resurrected and as the Messiah and God.

Okay, show me step-by-step from prophecy and Jesus' words why you believe that false teachers took over the early church and altered Scripture.

We can't really jump into prophecy until you see that the false teachers corrupted the word of God. First thing is first, which means you will have to evaluate the Gospel authors with me. Step one is to review the data presented by the early church fathers to proves that you have either been told the truth or you have been lied to. I found nothing to support the authors as Matthew and Mark. Luke doesn't really matter because it is a stated second hand or worse account. What convinces you that the authors are those stated men?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Linked is a fairly short video by Dr. Gavin Ortlund.

Link

There has been some discussion on this passage recently so I just wanted to get the opinion of those interested in this topic.

But my analysis shows that this comment was never made by Jesus, so it really doesn't matter what people think it means. Let's debate my analysis rather than the same old tired debate over what Jesus meant when he said that, because he didn't say it.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Actually, not all the resurrection accounts are valid. I am in the last stages of my analysis and there are five valid ones and the others are false teacher edits. There is an interesting key provided by the Holy Spirit that allows the truth to be separated from the false teacher edits. In summary though, the valid resurrection accounts prove Jesus resurrected and as the Messiah and God.

We can't really jump into prophecy until you see that the false teachers corrupted the word of God. First thing is first, which means you will have to evaluate the Gospel authors with me. Step one is to review the data presented by the early church fathers to proves that you have either been told the truth or you have been lied to. I found nothing to support the authors as Matthew and Mark. Luke doesn't really matter because it is a stated second hand or worse account. What convinces you that the authors are those stated men?

@JustTheFacts, what is to prevent you from deciding that all the accounts are invalid, if you think some of them are? I'm curious.

Also, why do you deflect my question from the prophecies to the gospels' authorship?

Nevertheless, I assume that you have read the beginnings of Luke and Acts. Dr. Luke says that he investigated the truth thoroughly; that's good enough for me to accept his two accounts.

Furthermore, I don't have to "prove" that John Mark and Matthew wrote their books. The Holy Spirit testifies to me that their accounts are genuine, since I've read them many, many times. After all, what difference does it make who wrote them, if the Holy Spirit inspired them as genuine?

I haven't yet seen any real evidence that the false teachers took over the early church and corrupted the manuscripts. By all accounts, the copyists were very protective of the manuscripts, since they saw them as inspired by God.

In addition, if ten centuries later, the 10,000 manuscripts agree with each other on the history and teachings, except for some tiny errors, then God preserved his Word very well.