Simon Peter the Roman

Matthew 7
9 Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?

Keep this verse in mind as you read along. This thread will be to the point with very little filler.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, one of the first disciples chosen by Jesus along with his brother Andrew.

Matthew 4
18 As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 20 At once they left their nets and followed him.

Peter was a fisherman, but Jesus called for him to "fish for people". Peter is what signifies the church, Jesus calls Peter the "rock" of the church.

Matthew 16
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The word Jesus uses for Peter's name is "petros", which literally means a "small stone".

John 6
35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Jesus is the bread of life, Peter is a small stone. Remember that verse at the beginning of the OP? It is relevant here.

Matthew 16
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Jesus calls Peter Satan, this is literally only 5 verses after he calls Peter the rock of the church and says that Hades would not overcome its gates. If Satan had infiltrated Peter right here then why did Jesus say Hades would never overcome the church's gates? Peter signifies the church.

Luke 22
31 Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat.

This is Jesus talking to Peter at the last supper. Again, Jesus implies that Satan has infiltrated the church (Peter) which contradicts his words about Hades not overcoming the gates of the church. This is right before Jesus calls out Judas' betrayal. Funny that Jesus was pointing at Simon but then turns around and picks Judas as his betrayer.

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

Peter replies to Jesus' accusation saying that he is ready to die for him. Jesus knows that he is lying and predicts that he will deny him three times. Peter indeed denies him three times later on.

This is a sign that Peter is a known liar. Again, Peter signifies the church because he is the rock or "stone".

John 18
10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

As Jesus is being arrested, Peter cuts off one of the high priest's servants ears. Jesus rebukes him and commands him to put his sword away.

This is where Peter ends up denying Jesus as he is sent to trial.

Where does Peter end up sitting during Jesus' trial?

Mark 14
53 They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together. 54 Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

Peter ends up sitting with the guards at Jesus' trial. Why is Peter sitting with the Roman guards at Jesus' trial? He just cut one of their servant's ears off. I would think this would bring heavy attention to him, yet it doesn't and he is easily allowed to sit with them.

John 18
36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Jesus claims that this world is not of his kingdom, saying that if it were, his servants would have fought to prevent his arrest. But wait, didn't Peter fight to prevent his arrest? How did Jesus forget this very important fact that he clearly witnessed not long before? Is he claiming that Peter is not his servant, but is actually the servant of Satan? He does call Peter Satan at one point and that Satan was "sifting him as wheat" as well, right before he was arrested.

Again, Peter is a "stone" and signifies the church as a whole. According to church tradition Peter was the first Pope, put in that position by Jesus himself. There is a prophecy that states the last Pope will be "Peter the Roman", and Jesus says something about the "last being first and first being last". Maybe the Prophecy of the Popes is a play on these words, naming the last as the first, Peter, a disciple who sat with Roman guards during Jesus' trial? One who is called Satan by Jesus himself?

And back to the first verse of the thread. Who, if their son was asking for bread (Jesus), would give them a stone (Peter/church) instead?

The the first Pope of the ROMAN Catholic Church was PETER. Peter the Roman, the antichrist.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You ever wondered, what the hat symbolizes? open fish mouth

a reply to: yulka

a reply to: yulka

Fish symbolism is really interesting actually. After Jesus resurrects he goes fishing with the disciples and catch a ton of fish, this symbolizes the newly formed church catching people in a net of lies.

We are currently in the Age of Pisces, the church age. Pisces is symbolized by two fish. Peter and Paul are the two founders of the church, they represent the twin fishes, they also represent the Greek twin gods Castor and Pollux in my opinion. They share a ton of similarities between each other with name changes, life events etcetera.

Paul means "small" and Peter means "stone". The "petras" that Jesus calls Peter literally means "small stone". Paul and Peter combined to create Pisces, the church age.

Jesus tells his disciples to follow a man with a water pitcher when he is gone, this symbolizes the Age of Aquarius which proceeds the Age of Pisces that we are currently in.

It's all symbolism, you just have to read it in a non-literal way to get the true message.

a reply to: occrest

Shhhh!!!

a reply to: occrest

One must always act as if one lives in the world today, So who wants to design the new hats?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How far back do you go in history when studying modern religion?

a reply to: yulka

All religion has the same source, they're just retellings of the same stories only in different ways and with different characters and deities. I go as far back as Greece personally, but I know even Greece has its roots in the Assyrian myths, as do the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. myths.

They're all plagiarisms of earlier myths reworked to fit the current society.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: yulka


It's all symbolism, you just have to read it in a non-literal way to get the true message.

Yeah like the son rising from the dead.
or the Sun Rising from the dark.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

One of them leads to further back its not the Assyrian with Sargon and Ashur

I thought Jesus was the Rock the church was built on, in fact the bible says Jesus was the rock over and over again

bible.knowing-jesus.com...


Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus 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. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I 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.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.



The conversation starts with
Peter declaring Jesus was the Messiah, not that he, Peter was.
Jesus was the Rock, Peter agrees

Jesus REPLIED
Blessed are you Peter (the little stone) that you know I am the Son of God (Jesus) and on this rock (Jesus) is what the church will be built on (knowledge of Jesus being the Son of God).

The church was not built on a pebble of a man such as Peter, who was not a Catholic. The Catholic church was not even in existence back then.

This teaching of Peter being the rock was only introduced after the Catholic church sought validation.

I can not in any way understand your train of logic.
Exegesis and understanding

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: yulka

All religion has the same source, they're just retellings of the same stories only in different ways and with different characters and deities. I go as far back as Greece personally, but I know even Greece has its roots in the Assyrian myths, as do the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. myths.

They're all plagiarisms of earlier myths reworked to fit the current society.

It amazes me you cant understand how to read and interpret a passage in the bible and comprehend it but you believe you understand all reason logic back to the early Greeks

a reply to: Raggedyman

No. The rock is Peter.

This may help:

Peter's name was never Peter. It was, as the New Testament states, Simon bar (ie son of) Jonah.

Peter is an Anglicization of the Greek word Petros, meaning rock. According to the verse the OP quoted, Matthew 16:18, Jesus actually gave Peter that name.

Even if the conversation is accurately reported (which would be almost a miracle in itself, since it took place two thousand years ago and probably no-one was taking notes), it does not have to refer to the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Saint Peter was only notionally the founder of that Church, because he is supposed to have gone to Rome and founded a Christian community there, making him the first Bishop of Rome. But the Roman Catholic Church as an entity separate from the wider community of Christian believers did not even exist until about the fourth century; the first Pope (to be called that, instead of Bishop of Rome) was Siricius, who attained that office in the year 384.

My own view is that Jesus was simply appointing a leader among his disciples, someone they could turn to for advice and decisions when their master had left the scene. He wasn't mandating the future Bishops of Rome to exert authority over the whole Christian community or act as arbiters of Scripture and doctrine.

Most likely he chose the name Peter because it stood for aspects of Simon's character that fitted him for this leadership role (strength, endurance, reliability, for example). For all we know, it was a nickname already in use among the disciples.

The Roman Church is not the Christian community but merely one segment of it. This is rather obvious to anyone looking in at Christianity from the outside. Christians, however, tend to emphasize these sectarian differences.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The greeks used philosophy instead of dogmas as to how a society should work, meaning the illusion of freedom in a society, or as the romans called it citizen. Through history the same three stories are told in different ways, same story though. The logics behind the greek philosophy is for you to not get insulted when someone says, work you subhuman slave, you mean nothing, you can do everything in your imagination so shut up and let the privileged enjoy their lives.
The law books are always based on the same ideals, or commandments.

Dont follow blindly.

Or does it sound better when someone says, i love you, be good, be productive and God will reward you.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I remember when I was 12 and preparing for being baptized at a First Christian church in 1974, and I am still a member of, and reading all of these verses and totally understanding what Jesus was implying with everything he said. And yet for some reason, you have misunderstood the true meanings. Perhaps to understand correctly requires a true desire to understand what is the meaning that Jesus expected you to see here in these words??

If you do have that desire then it must some other reason you have gotten them all wrong? Do you believe that Jesus is the son of the living God, and have an honest quest to know him is your friend? I did when I was 12, but he did say things that I did not understand then, but do now 40 years later.

He was speaking to Peter to show peter how the enemy Satan can directly tempt the mind with tricks, denials, uncertainties, and how even all by oneself, a person can sink or swim when thrust into these situations of spiritual matters, (which normally are not static enough at all times to us because we are physical creatures and the spiritual side can fade and wane from our minds, and to not sink requires assuredness in what you learn and understand, and it was up to Peter, just like everyone, to discover that through vigilance of spirit.

With his guard down he quickly floundered when being tested as has every Christian, and making mistakes is one of the best teachers, so that's all I have time to relate, and it is what saw when I read it.

Every so called contradiction that people claim exists in the bible have symbolic meanings and this is a way of discovery that does not always deliver using a silver platter or a spoon, and so you have to put in a bit more effort to understand, and people who don't really want to understand, or are looking for an excuse to deny Christ, will do so, and sometimes unseen enemies are allowed to show people plenty of excuses to do that in their mind, but there always exists within that framework, a little voice afterwards that you find yourself pondering over, that accepting an excuse to reject what is true was a mistake. That is when it is time to put it in reverse and to keep seeking God and Christ because you really want to know what the truth is, and you personally care about these things enough because if they really are true, you want to be able to be counted as someone who stood fast for the truth, because the truth of God's word is the only thing that can deliver any human from being a slave to lies and deceit that Satan works tirelessly against all people, and you did it because this is very important to Christ and Peter is the very same example being shown to you now, but happened long ago. Christ is simply waiting for all who seek him, to stand tall against the enemy who's only goal is to confuse and muddy the truth of God's word so you give up and follow the multitudes who don't want to put in much effort to understand what is the truth of all God's word. Everyone has had this happen, even Peter who saw Christ do real and powerful things and knew for a fact that Jesus is God's son. No matter who you are, it is not something you get by being lazy of will, intellect or of embarrassment and fear of unbelievers knowing and mocking those who know, or seek truly the Lord as the only one who exists, that can save you or anyone.

By learning this myself, I can say openly say that I now know as absolute fact that Christ is with me always and is never very far away from any of us, and even though I still fall and get run over by the train of deceit and do just as Peter once did, he is there to pick me back up with kindness, even though I don't deserve it.

This brought tears to my eyes and Christ has read every word I just typed here. And he picked me up again. He is really real in a very grand way. If you discover the truth and accept it, and you will know it when you find it, There are multitudes of cheers being shouted that know about it, and are giving glory to God because of it. We exist without seeing so much because we feel so small and unimportant, but we are most important to the only one that really matters. That is what Satan hates anyone who learns this. I have zero sympathy for that one.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Good post CA. I do ask though, with respect. Why hasn't Christ just simply destroyed Satan and satan's followers. I get tired of hearing about the almighty who will end suffering. Unlike Peter, who was crucified upside down there are may believers and their families who, since the beginning of the gospels, have suffered in their beleifs of the almighty.

Faith is not going to prevent suffering and violent deaths for another 2,000 years.

Christ needs to 'man up' now, and stop it. This belief of eternal paradise is no different to the belief of dying to meet thy maker and 72 flamin virgins.

With due repect. Please explain why we all still suffer if the almighty is a kind loving god who already knows the future, what we're thinking and where we are headed in our lives. A violent sacrifice to the belief of our Lord is not entertaining to folk nowadays regardless of where they reside.

Perhaps the almighty may reconcile that suffering and death is mitigated to determine the faith. But, I say, and I am a believer, that perhaps the all knowing lord may consider the faith before it is horribly destroyed. Of course the righteous one is the all knowing, creator and perhaps the destroyer.

So for crying out aloud, destoy satan now, and his followers and not follow some time consuming plan to determine faith. "lord" you alreay K'now the circumstances if you are to believed. No more suffering.

Kindest regards,

Bally

a reply to: bally001

If the world was a happy pappy place, how on earth would we all grow spiritually?? Without the torment of loss, sacrifice, hurts etc? How could we grow to be better people, without knowing hunger, poverty etc? eh?

I shudder thinking the world could very well of been a place where we sat around holding hands singing Kumbiyah. Oyyy. Cheers Eve for getting us kicked out of that Eden!

a reply to: auroraaus

Look, I'm with yer on that one mate. I'm not knocking life as we K'now it. Life, of course has it's ups and downs. Makes it interesting. Please read my post again. I am not postulating as a person that the world should be a better place. We make our bed and have to sleep in it.

I simply tried make mention that an all knowing saviour and creator and protector may consider his believers before they are committed to physical harm. Maybe I could have worded it better.

Thanks for you reply,'

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus calls Peter Satan, this is literally only 5 verses after he calls Peter the rock of the church and says that Hades would not overcome its gates. If Satan had infiltrated Peter right here then why did Jesus say Hades would never overcome the church's gates? Peter signifies the church.

You didn't read all of the chapter. Basically the J-man was telling Peter that he must be Satan/Full of dark thoughts if he was to refuse what was supposed to happen to Jesus, as he was talking about going back to Jerusalem and had to face some heavy proverbial.

He then goes on to say (from Matthew 16)

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.
26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

Basically saying Oi, give yourself to God, follow me and what God has planned. For if you don't, your soul may as well be with Satan.

Mmmkay.

So just a tip, don't take snippets of the bible and distort it into your own thinking, just keep things in context. Although, pretty sure the bible has been distorted so many times since the J-man was on the cross singing Always Look on the Bright Side.

Wait that was Brian.

Cmon people get real, the Bible is mostly fiction the OT is just a different version of an older story and the NT was put together by so called religious leaders to control the masses. Look at the Gospel Mark I think it was Mary and Salome went to the tomb where they met a man ( not an angel). Yet in the later gospels he's turned into an angel! So who told the author of Mark? So that thirty years later (minimum) he should include it in his writing. It's like me trying to write down the conversation between Patton & Montgomery before the invasion of Germany. Couldn't do it.