What is the motive here? Let me rock your world!

I put this one under “word studies” because it’s an actual word issue. Last night I listened to what I thought was a strange straw man argument, due to misrepresentation and over simplification of this word and The Word. As I’m not really from this protestant background I had to wonder, why? Why, man? This thing clearly doesn’t even make sense?

I figured it out, and it makes even less sense but whatever I suppose? The issue was about Peter being the “rock” that Jesus builds his church upon. Apparently Matthew isn’t as clear as we thought. Even though it’s as clear as it get’s, really. And so then it came down to this Greek word “Petros”. First of all this word in the masculine in Greek does mean stone, or big stone, bigger than a millstone, etc. So there is that.

Pretty basic, no?

This word was pointed to as meaning “pebble” in a way to take away Peter’s God given gift, or question it. Later in wondering why anyone would even have a motive to question such a thing, I discovered it’s likely due to an anti Catholic stance. This is where it becomes a tragedy in my mind. Because there are a plentiful number of things to challenge the Catholics with, they make it very easy. But this isn’t one of them, because the point also pit’s you against scripture. Then it is easy to deduce, it’s a point of pride, not Biblical truth.

So, I see they are just trying to be right and gloss it and move on as to not be questioned too much. And that always makes the alarm bells ring and I then have to wonder, what is it that they seek? It’s the pride of being “right”. But there is no such thing, is the problem. The only thing that is good and correct in truth, is The Bible. Since God is good and The Bible is His Word. So, we must align our point with it, always. If we are to be prudent in truth. As God seeks those whom worship Him in spirit and in truth.

The next point is that we have to consider, thought the translation and writting is in Greek, they almost surely weren’t speaking Greek to each other in the context of this verse. It was most likely Aramaic or Hebrew that they had this conversation in. And as to Matthew, it is debated that the original was translated from Matthews own Hebrew dialect. I found further evidence for this concept as well, but we besides that we should also understand by the time this was added into The Bible, Christians of power didn’t like Jews or Jewish stuff that much in a lot of cases as it pertains to Rome. None the less just for the sake of thinking…

Either way the language goes, Hebrews have Hebrew thoughts.

The thing is though, whatever! It’s kind of weird that people don’t seem to understand very often that even if it was both written and translated from pure Greek, it doesn’t mean that it is less Hebrew. These people are Hebrews and think in Hebrew ideas weather it’s translated into Greek, or English for that matter. It’s distinctly Jewish material, as is the entire Bible. But I digress.

The real point is either way Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic what is being stated in Matthew about Peter, is what it is based on all 3 languages. Peter is “the rock” that the church get’s build upon, post Jesus. And Biblically (in The Word) we see this is so. And that is so obvious given The Word and history that I struggled as a non Catholic, or protestant, to figure out how or why anyone would even argue that?

But the reason as it turns out is because they view it as a Catholic idea and if it’s Catholic they must argue against it lest some legitimacy is bestowed upon the Catholics!? That is not a good argument from a spirit of truth and Biblical accuracy. Again, I’m not Catholic. But it’s very basic to acknowledge that they do play a major role in bringing The Bible to the world. They did good, at that one thing. Or God used them for bringing that about, despite their many highly highly questionable and non Biblical ways. So, ok then?

The trouble and stumbling block is you end up arguing against The Bible in a way you totally don’t need too. If you want to make points against the Catholic church that is fine, but in this context you aren’t even correct in either sense! It’s a double an Tandra of Christian/Protestant logical fallacy.

If you want to make an argument that Peter wasn’t ever stated by The Bible to be in Rome, that would be a smarter approach. That way you use The Bible as your anchor, at least. Or that even if he was in Rome and was the head of the church there in his time, that doesn’t mean he started the Catholic church as a “pope” style figure.

Mostly because in fact that is true, if he was there. In Peter’s time he was still… a Jew! And didn’t do much at all of what the later church did. In fact as of 321 and 364 Peter would have very likely been highly opposed to the “Catholics”. Never could it be imagined that Peter would be cool with veneration of the sun as the day of rest. And in 364 you would have to be a Judaizer to even talk to Peter. So, there you go my protesant friends. There is your solid argument against Catholic legitamacy according to The Bible.

You could really take a strong stance, if you too didn’t participate in the pagan ways and things that they did in fact bring into the picture of what is “Christian”. But most of you either don’t know or won’t accept that they are responsible for why Christmas exist in the first place. It’s not at all anything to do with the original and Biblical church. But that is covered by me in many other writings, so I’ll leave it there.

Also here is one you will probably like….

In Peter’s time they weren’t wearing the fancy get up’s and capes and gowns and cute little hats! In the early original church they are said to have dressed modestly in basic greko roman clothing. I’d love to see the look on Peter’s face if he came to the later times and saw a pope dressed up as they do! Absurdity! The early church most surely wasn’t what we think of as the Universal Roman Catholic church, post Constantine. So therefore you could make the argument legit by simply posing these kinds of ideas, instead of some random semantical debate that isn’t even accurate to bein with? Biblically or otherwise.

These are the things I find Protesants’s struggling with when I hang out with them. And I love them for it! This isn’t’ to bash on them, but just to point out some of the debates are goofy and don’t make ton’s of sense. But the ones I know do love The Bible, somehow or another.

I’m on neither side of the Christian great schism coin, pt 1 or 2 or any of them. Because it produces insanity as far as I can tell. It is of no benefit or value to deny Peter is the rock the church is built on. Because we can see in The Bible that he was the chief after Jesus. Even Paul comes to him to make explanation and clarification. He is the one taking the donations and calling out members like Elias and his wife for being liars, etc. He is spoken of in much context as being the head of these things.

So that is just silly to try to gloss. It is not honoring The Word or what Jesus just plainly states. It’s to disrespect Peter to take away what Jesus obviously leaves to his leadership. And in all reality he wasn’t Catholic, he is a Jew! Part of the sect of Jews who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, the “nazari’s”.

Sadly both Catholics and Protestants have lost sight of that fact, the Jewish root and vine. Because the Catholics after the time of Constantine tried to erase that Jesus and the apostles were actually and really, Jews. Even though they didn’t expect Gentiles to convert to their ways, their ways remained. Rather they gave Gentiles a great gift and the lowest expectation possible.

While it is true that Jesus is “THE ROCK”, he is The Rock of salvation. He happened to make the rock that the church got built upon, Peter. Hence Peter is the rock the church is built upon, because The Bible says so. That still doesn’t make him a Catholic pope though.

You see? I know you do! Because we already had the conversation and it was confirmed because Jesus is that AMAZING.