JFJ Forums

Nice try but Isaiah 22:22 is talking about Jesus NOT Peter and as I said before Peter's name means stone NOT rock....Jesus is the ROCK....

you say that Jesus mentioned father in scripture and father means Pope...so to your kids your the Pope....neat must confuse the hell out of them when you mention the name pope.

getting back to that father point....
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

That's a commandment to call NO MAN father in the religious sense EXCEPT your FATHER who is in heaven.....and father in any sense even in definition does not mean pope....it means dad to most of us.

Now if Jesus Himself COMMANDED us not to call any man father on earth except the Father in heaven where does the RCC come of calling its bishops,cardinals even the pope father? It is the most obvious term they use that is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN BY JESUS HIMSELF.

Let me ask you something: If you're anti-RCC, why do refuse to believe in the Trinity? Elohim Was, Is, and Will Be Before and After the RCC. The RCC has kind of helped Unitarianism, Islam, and Talmudic Judaism; because the RCC has sadly been the face of Christianity for a long time.

Nice try? No, excellent response. In Isaiah 22:22, we have King David giving his keys of authority to Eliakim. In Matthew 16:17-19, we have Jesus quoting Isaiah 22:22 as Jesus gives His keys of authority to Peter. Also significant is that the keys given by David to Eliakim were inheritable by Eliakim's successor, thus the keys given by Jesus to Peter were also inheritable by Peter's successor.

Now, if you'd like to back up your statement that Isaiah 22:22 is talking about Jesus, I would love to hear your interpretation.

If you want "Peter" to mean "stone" that's fine by me. It's not germaine to the discussion at hand. But, speaking of Peter. What you have ignored is the fact that Jesus, God incarnate, changed Simon's name to Peter (stone). Why? Who else in scripture had their names changed by God and what did it signify? Why is Simon Peter (Simon Stone) the only one of the Apostles to have his name changed by God?



Nope, not me. I went back through this thread and don't find myself making any similar remark.

 

Changing the subject is usually a tactic by someone who is not making their case. If you'd like to discuss this issue, then open another thread. In the meanwhile, I'd like to hear how Isaiah 22:22 is about Jesus and why God changed Simon's name to Peter.

God bless...

Who doesn't know the Scriptures, bighodag? Matthew's name was originally Levi, and Paul's name was originally Saul.

Yes, Matthew and Levi are the same person and having two names was common among the Hebrews of the time. God did not change Levi to Matthew or Matthew to Levi as He did with Peter.

Yes, like with Peter, God changed Saul to Paul and with that name change came Paul's commission as an apostle to the gentiles.

But again, Peter remains the only one of the Twelve that had his name changed by God. Why? What is the significance of God changing Simon's name to Peter (stone)?

I also note that you chose not to answer any of the questions regarding Isaiah 22:22.

[BTW, I have not accused or even hinted that you or anyone here doesn't know the scriptures. You may be reading into my signature file something that isn't there. I was prompted for a signature file in the account settings and chose one of my favorite scripture verses. Regardless of the myth, Catholics do love and read the Bible and we also have favorite verses that resonate with us.]

God bless...

Scipture confirms what you say prophet, "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." (John 1:42 KJV).

This re-naming of Peter took place long before Jesus said, " And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..." (Mattew 16:18) the main scripture the papist manipulate to prop up the heresy of a pope!

If we examine both these passages it is seen that in John 1:42 Peter had only 'hearsay' knowledge of who Jesus was from his brother Andrew (verse 41). Jesus was saying to Peter effectively that he would be be a 'stone' in the Church of Christ at some time in the future when he had personal personal revelation from God (instead of from man - his brother) who Jesus is - and it is upon WHO JESUS IS - the Chief Cornerstone - the church would be built - the living stones.

Even though Peter met Jesus, followed Jesus and heard from his brother Andrew that Jesus was the Mesiah in John 1:42 he obviously had not accepted it as spiritual ruth because it still had to be revealed to him from God Himself in Matthew 16:16-17, "Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

Andrew had told Peter on his first meeting with Jesus that Jesus was the Messiah - the Christ - " He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ."

DavidJ

You again do not know what you're talking about. Who changed Saul's name to "Paul", and (I'd argue) Levi to "Matthew"?

Yep I'm anti RCC...RCC promoted trinity and always has....if by Elohim you mean the One True God of Israel...never said otherwise just don't agree with your interpretation.
I'm a Oneness Apostolic I have nothing to do with the Unity Church and therefore am not a Unitartian. Talmudic Judaism believes in One GOd as do I...only difference between us is that I say that Jesus is God manifest in flesh all by himself alone. Talmudic Judaism is still awaiting thier Messiah..you figure that 3 persons make up God.
As far as RCC goes...the whole institution is against scripture(re: idol worship,calling men father and worshipping the Queen of Heaven) and its destruction is foretold in Revelation.
By the way those that believe as I do were burned at the stake by such trinitarian non catholic men as Luther.

Hope that clarifies things

Yes, I did err. I have gone back to all the passages and examined them as well as doing some name research. Neither individual was renamed.

The name Matthew (Greek) is another form of Levi (Hebrew or Aramaic).
[Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Richard Bauckham, p. 109-110]

The name Paul (Greek/Latin) is another form of Saul (Hebrew).
[source: 101 Questions and Answers on Paul, Ronald D. Witherup, p. 21, question 7]

Again, only Peter among the Twelve is renamed by God. DavidJ has at least acknowledged that Peter was renamed by God and is a "stone". Great. All the apostles are equals, but only Peter is a/the "stone". Why? What is the significance of Peter being the only one called "stone"?

Oh, and let's not neglect Jesus quoting Isaiah 22:22 in Matthew 16:17-19.

God bless...

Goy, I hate to agree with your blunt way of saying things, but on this occassion I am in full agreement with you.

Finally Marina admits he has erred on this point of re-naming. However, he still blindly asks this ridiculous question, "Why? What is the significance of Peter being the only one called "stone"?" I don't think he can read either,  Peter himself is very clear that he was not the only one called a stone; Peter tells us himself, "....you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5)

DavidJ