[Former Protestant] I wanted to see and address this video because there is a claim in a more recent video that people were mad about the things stated in this video. This is my understanding of what is happening: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 16:18] Of course, the distinction being made here between the two (Petros and petra) by the video would be irrelevant since it wouldn't change the fact that He (Jesus) would still be addressing St. Peter as foundational to His Church (small rock or otherwise). The video further emphasizes this distinction by bringing up pictures of what we would imagine the difference of Petros and petra to be. This again, would be irrelevant as Christ himself says you need only small faith to do big things [Matthew 17:20]. The size of the rock would be irrelevant (and Jesus makes no emphasis of it) to the establishing of His Church. Only that He is calling out St. Peter alone in specific for this specific moment. There is also a claim that things would have been said differently if it was meant differently. But no example was given. As a Spanish speaker, I can definitely say that in other languages, words can change for the same object in the same sentence. This would be understanding coming from an English-speaker centered mindset. The video goes on to say that Jesus is not the rock/Church. But then why would scripture mention a rock at all if neither St. Peter nor Jesus are the foundational rocks of the Church? The video expresses that it would be St. Peter's confession of faith that would be the foundational rock but then that just seems like a roundabout way of trying not to say St. Peter is the rock. Naturally, if his confession is important, then so is he who made the confession. It is a distinction without a difference. If it is just anyone's faith, then he (St. Peter) would not have been elevated in the first place. The next claim is that God the father gave this knowledge to St. Peter which is absolutely true [Matthew 16:17]. But this doesn't mean he (St. Peter) had to make the confession. Just like the video mentions, the demons know who God and Christ is but do not do the same confession of faith [James 2:19]. Action (or cooperation with God's grace if you will) is still required to move forward with the gifts God gives. "Peter is not the foundation of what the Church is built on. That could never be the case." I'm not sure where this is coming from. The Lord has used so many people throughout history to accomplish His ends and there's no reason to doubt that He could not use anyone He wishes to carry out His will. If merely being a sinner was an automatic disqualification for doing Godly things, then we would not have scripture to begin with. Saying God is incapable of using a human being for His purpose seems to be quite limiting of God. Overall, I do wish to be as charitable as possible. I was curious if people were really upset but I do not think people are mad. Simply put, there are tons of flaws in logic and fallacies at play here. The video has many claims and statements of speculation of what is meant by the word Petros and its significance. But no substantive evidence is given to support these particularly subjective interpretations of scripture. Mostly, these claims seem to aim to have "plausible deniability" of the papal system or something like it. It is just personal interpretation [Proverbs 3:5-6]. To find the original meaning to this, you'd need the one holy Church that Jesus established and gave authority to in order to come close to properly answering this question. And for that, a study of Church history would be necessary.
I can see so clearly, that (in the Chosen) Simon went through such a painful time losing a child, came back to Jesus asking not to be let go, realising hls need for Jesus, experiencing His mighty power. Of course it's so right for Simon to make this heartfelt confession. Shahar's expression was priceless and beautiful!❤😊
The Apostolic churches have so many historical records regarding Apostolic Succession from St. Peter himself, who is really the first pope. And also another disciples. I'd rather listen and believe on the Apostles and the early church fathers who closest to them instead of modern Christianity who deny and rejected the early church fathers.
Again you believe in secondary sources ie your priests. Early Apostolic fathers didn't talk about the Pater or Pope, all of which is later accretion and error When Rome became prominent for Christianity in 4th century, the bishop at Rome became prominent. I would say that the Real pope in that sense is James the Just, he was the First Bishop of Jerusalem the mother church. what is Rome, nothing.
@@sciencescholar3440 1. Early Christian writings: Some early Christian writings, such as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John the Apostle) and the First Letter of Clement, suggest a special status for the church in Rome and its leadership. These writings indicate that the church in Rome held a position of prominence and authority in the early Christian community. 2. Early church fathers: Early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius of Caesarea wrote about the primacy of the church in Rome and the role of Peter in its foundation. These writings provide some historical support for the belief that Peter was associated with the church in Rome.
@@Pluvophil... Because The Roman Church wanted to make Peter the Head. Just a side note...Jesus also said not to call man your father, for your father is in Heaven
Remember back in a season one walk and talk, Jesus told Peter he didn't need his leadership capabilities then because Jesus was still here. Once Jesus was gone, Peter would take on the leadership role.
Corinthians 3:11. For no man can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Christ is the foundation, not Peter. The church wasn't founded on Peter, but on the Truth that Peter spoke when he said, "I say you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". The church is built on Jesus being the Son of God. That's the founding stone. It's not built on Peter. Is Peter the founding member of Jesus' church? Yes, but Peter wasn't Catholic, and he was never called the head of the church, let alone Pope. Peter, Paul, the rest of the apostles and many disciples led the church working together, and seeing Jesus as the head of His church . Jesus said the first would be last, and the last would be first. Peter would Never have called himself the first or the head of the church, and he never would have allowed anyone else to call him the first or the head of the church. He always deferred to Christ as the leader, and always conferred and decided matters involving the church with the other founding members.
Jesus is called the Rock all throughout the old and new testament. Jesus is the foundation Rock, the Cornerstone, according to Scripture. Please read and study the scriptures for yourself. Don't just take someone's word for it. God reveals Himself to each of us through His Holy Word. That's the guaranteed way to find Him. Read His love letter to humanity that we call the Bible, and ask the Holy Spirit for God's wisdom and understanding in your mind I pray you find the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. Love and blessings to you, on the MIGHTY name of Jesus. ❤️
Your correct Jesus was making his church on earth yes Jesus is the cornerstone but he needed a leader which is Peter the rock , it’s silly to fight this it says what is says now if you think Peter was the last leader fine but I believe his leadership was handed down
@@annb9029 leadership is inherited from God, not handed down by men.God calls one to preach and teach. That means that Peter didn't sanction every leader of Jesus' church. Also, Peter wasn't Catholic. He was Jewish, practicing his Jewish faith, in fulfillment of Scripture. History doesn't record an actual Roman Catholic Pope until the 3rd century. Peter was a leader among many leaders of the early church. He deferred to Christ as the head, and saw his fellow apostles and disciples as all being chosen leaders.
@annb9029 of course it was handed down. That's the definition of papal succession. There is a direct line just as Matthew outlined in Jesus' lineage. The papal succession shows 266 popes after St. Peter.
The name Peter is directly from Greek Πέτρος, Petros (an invented, masculine form of Greek petra, the word for "rock" or "stone"), which itself was a translation of Aramaic Kefa ("stone, rock"), the new name Jesus gave to apostle Simon Bar-Jona. So yes ...Jesus meant Peter personally 😂
Nope. Petros is the little Rock, Petra means rock. Jesus is the cornerstone of the Church. The faith te Apostle Peter confessed in that verse is what the Church was built on...Faith in Jesus Christ alone
@@drkatherine20 Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Greek translation introduces confusion. There's no confusion in Aramaic. But look at context. Jesus had told his disciples to eat His body and some followers left Him. But He doubled down. Then He asked if His apostles would leave Him too. Simon spoke up and Jesus recognized Him carefully by name (Simon, son of Jonah), saying that His Heavenly Father, not mere man had informed him. And then, similar to Abram to Abraham, Jesus renamed Simon to Peter and further granted authority (keys). These events were personal to Peter, not an ambiguous, vacillating series of events describing a philosophy.
@@TheChosenSleuth He could have spoken other languages, but it's likely He didn't because conversations were in Aramaic. Besides, the context makes it clear. This was a pivotable moment. Clarity was essential. In recognizing, identifying to whom He would pass authority, and extending that authority (keys), He couldn't have been more precise. He knew the devil would attempt to confuse interpretations of His Word. So He was very precise.
@@KenPaulsenArchitect … It was indeed pivotal, and the devil gained a strong foothold, to cause a hell of a lot of stumbling. Good thing I read Isaiah.
If you want to look at Peter's role, which Jesus is telling Peter here, look in the book of Acts. What do keys do? They open the door! Who preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost? That was the first day of the week. It was the beginning of the church. But... that was only Jews! Even Peter would not understand until later that the church was for ALL! And who did Jesus use to open the door for the Gentiles? Yep, Peter again brought the gospel to the house of Cornelius! So, Peter was truly given the keys to the kingdom! Very cool!!
Peter was one of the apostles who was given the opportunity to be first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. But that is all, and is consistent with all of the inspired scriptures, including the words of Peter himself. 1 Peter 5:1-3 Peter was married. Peter was married. Peter didn't allow himself to be worshipped. Peter was fallible and corrected by Paul. The Bible is clear that Jesus is head of the church. We must follow His will. He is not just our savior, but our Lord!
1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God". God "gave Him to be the head over all things to the church". Ephesians 1:22 God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church". This verse indicates that Jesus rules over everything at the will of God the Father, and that both the Father and the Son reign together over all created things, including the church. Paul develops this theme in more detail in chapter 5.
It'd be easier to just take what Jesus said that Peter is the Rock as what it is. The Protestant mental gymnastics and self-denial is really a bit much.
this. Chosen Sleuth is so analytical and inquisitive in all other accounts, but when it comes to this topic the mental gymnastics really pirouette to allow his theological view.
I was thinking the exact same thing. We cannot all have a separate way to understand these verses to fit our lives and our understanding. Lord, help us have the right understanding and vision. Tradition is how Jesus' teachings originate from and not the Bible. Traditions precede the Bible. Shoutout to my fellow Catholics and Christians as a whole. God bless you!
Peter is the ROCK, in the sense/sense’s, that GOD revealed the truth and gave him the clarity of belief in Jesus, the faith. ALSO, in my faith, the earthly founder of the church, and the compassionate believer. The gatekeeper. Metaphorically the Foundation. Jesus is the actual founder, foundation, the ONE who we FOLLOW. Jesus is the CHRIST.
Brant Pitre and Steve Ray go in depth and talk about the Jewish roots/meaning of the keys the chair, the rock. The neverending debates often overlooks the Jewish lens. They each have books on it but seveal good videos of their lectures are on You Tube as well. Pitre has a PhD and has studied these things in depth, going back to the Jewish roots.
Peter is the foundation Jesus, would build his Church on: He is the one that would lead the church from the beginning . Also, Jesus, gave the keys of His Kingdom to only one individual and that was Peter.
@@TheChosenSleuthI’m begging you to one day do a Bible study on Samuel and his neverending frustration with the human need to make kings and gods out of other men. 🙏 😂
He's not going to take what you say seriously. He just spent this entire video doing some serious mental gymnastics over the translation of Peter. Jesus changed the man's name, and now we debate the translation of the word "Peter" in different languages, and genders, to talk our way out of the idea of the Catholic church.
Wrong. Read the Scriptures for yourself, and not what you've heard some minister say. The pronoun "you" is in the Greek, 'you all." In English, it's just "you" for either one person or for more than one person. So Jesus was saying that all of the disciples (us included) the keys to the kingdom. The BIGGER question is, what are those keys? I think it's metaphoric for the keys of UNDERSTANDING the Kingdom of God and how to lead others to God--not actual keys to locked doors, but hope that will lead believers to an understanding that though they may die, they will live again, because their graves will be opened at the Second Coming. These keys of understanding and believing the gospel will LOOSE the sleeping saints from their graves, and they are BOUND for God's Kingdom. You have to look at it in the language of Christ's parables, and the language of the Second Coming.
K, but in the transcripts we have (which are many) this is indeed very clear in the Greek. And even Cephas holds the same understanding as I’m saying here. Peter was a leader of the early church, but to elevate him more than he was is a disservice to him and to what Christ was trying to say here.
@@TheChosenSleuthyou are performing eisegesis to conform to your notions. Be a sleuth investigating the first generations of Christians in their primary sources. Read the writings of the earliest Christians who were contemporaries or disciples of Peter, John, Paul, like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, as well as of their students to see what they understood from the Apostles and the authors of the New Testament.
@@TheChosenSleuth Peter is not elevated, and neither is the pope, both are just leaders. Also, the Greek distinction between petros and petra was no longer used at that time.
The Mormon church teaches or taught that upon " this rock I will build my church." Previous to this statement Christ talks about the revelation that Peter received. That he knows Jesus is the Christ because the Father revealed it to Simon or Peter as he is now called. It is about receiving revelation that the church will be built upon. Just sharing....
The words directly before "upon this rock" ... is the blessing given to Peter (his name change). It's not about his revelation. Why, oh why, would Christ have chosen to use the word play "You are Peter" and "upon this rock" ... if he wasn't drawing a through line to Peter, as the foundation? Why add that layer of confusion, if that's not what He meant?
@@kdmdlo Interesting questions. Why did Jesus choose the words he chose? Good question. I don't know. Isn't the whole Bible filled with riddles by Jesus? Anyway Let us suppose you are right. If Peter is the church foundation, does this die when Peter does? So Peter was such a great man that the Gates of Hades shall no prevail against it with his current knowledge?? Jesus says of Peter that "blood and flesh did not reveal it, but the father."..... that Jesus is the Christ. How did the Father do that?? By letter? By a pigeon? I am not sure any man is great enough or smart enough to prevail. My belief is that the Ancient prophets were given a revelation(s) just like Peter. How else does a man prevail against Hades? If you were given revelation couldn't that assist you to being more prepared for future events? Can't the Father revel things today? It is okay that we disagree. We are just talking here.
Brandon, even MATTHEW in this episode recognized Peter as being tapped as a leader who possesses the Keys To The Kingom with Jesus at the fireside chat. Arguing about a rock and a pebble is honestly comical.😅
It's a standard Protestant explanation of this passage. Yes, Matthew may have recognized Peter as a leader, but when Matthew wrote in Greek he *did* use the different words Petros and Petra, drawing a distinction at some level.
@@reginapontes5672 A little bit, yeah, but it's one way to get around the idea of Peter being the first Pontiff. Myself, I have an alternate interpretation, that the Church is built on the "rock" of *revelation* which Jesus mentioned in the previous verse--attestations through the Holy Spirit and the conviction of personal testimony that brings are what steadies the Church, rather than relying on a man (even as sturdy a man as Peter became post-Pentecost). Rather than the Apostles themselves, it was the office they held--and the authority implicit in that office to receive revelation for the Church--which was what was important.
@MusicBlik Remember too Brandon and others are refusing to address The Keys To The Kingdom Discourse that appeared in OT Isaiah 22::22 correlating it to what Jesus did with Peter "the Rock" scene.
I'm sorry, I usually love your deep dives. However the mental gymnastics you go through to try to disprove that Peter was the foundation of the church lacks common sense. It is clear from the Aramaic translation of the Rock, PLUS, the wealth of other evidence in the Bible that Peter was obviously the leader of the apostles. It looks like the only reason you and other protestants don't want to believe it because it's too "Catholic."
And when we call Brandon the Sleurth, we don't mean that he is actually the Sleuth, we mean that his confession of "Let's do a deep dive" is the belief in sleuthiness that we pursue!! Come on people....
@@danscott419 Jesus said to Simon “You are Rock.” However, you say in your comment, “Peter is not the Rock.” You’re directly contradicting Jesus in your comment. Think about it. Maybe Luther was wrong. What then? You put your faith in a guy who came along 1500 years later?
@patrickevans6712 Hi Patrick. I appreciate your reply from several days ago. Here's my reply: The highlight and key point Jesus presents in the lesson to His disciples is twofold: He says that Simon did not know who He is from "flesh and blood" but that the knowledge came from the Father. Flesh and blood do not last and would not last throughout the centuries to come. But, His Father does. An everlasting and living foundation, one worth building His Church on because it will last, and last permanently, is the key point. In many of the lessons Jesus taught, He gives what something is and He gives what something isn't. In Matthew 16:17 He does this very clearly: 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. In that verse, He said what it is and what it isn't. "It"... being the knowledge of who Jesus is... and that He isn't Ezekiel, Jeremias, or other prophets. Perhaps this will help: John 14:10-30 10 "...but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." "He doeth the works," which includes all works. This includes revealing to the followers of Jesus, down through the ages yet to come, that Jesus is the Son of the living God. Just like how Simon knew, all those who would come unto the Lord will also know, through the Father. Peter, a man of flesh and blood, would eventually pass away. But the Father does not. There is no stronger foundation to build upon than the word of the Father Himself. Jesus came to do His Father's will, not His own will. Jesus pointedly distinguishes the differences between information coming from flesh and blood and true knowledge coming from His Father. Jesus makes His cautionary point of trusting in the Father rather than trusting in men... of flesh and blood, who cannot know assuredly... alone and on their very own. Along the paths and roadways between cities and towns in those days, the road signs were made of rock. They were guide stones. This is who and what Simon would become as Peter. He would become an integral part in guiding people to the foundation, which is the word of the Father. Once they are there, the Father "doeth the works" of converting. That the Father can and does reveal to all hearts who come unto Jesus, that Jesus is His Son, this is the living and everlasting foundation worth building on.
I find it entertaining and distressing at the same time, when modern preachers try to explain scripture and like Martin Luther, bend it to fit what they want it to mean. The early church fathers, the ones who either knew and heard Jesus preach, or knew and heard the Apostles preach, all had an understanding of what Jesus meant. They all accepted that Jesus chose Peter as the one to lead his church when he was gone. Unfortunately, to accept this, and to accept many of the sacred traditions of the original church founders, would be to admit that the Catholic church is the one true and universal church founded by Jesus. So rather than accept this, and accept the teachings of the people who were there at the beginning, too many are willing to follow preachers who claim to know better than the Apostles what it is that Jesus meant.
Okay, so accepting that Peter was chosen to lead the church, from do we derive that Jesus decried that Peter would have successors who would lead with the same authority ?
@@timothym2241 This comes from the early church tradition as understood by the church fathers. These were the people who spoke directly to Jesus and who were blessed with the knowledge of the Holy Spirit at pentecost. I trust that guided by the Holy Spirit, They knew better than we do.
@@clydewilliams7061 What's your source for Catholicism predating Jesus? Catholic sources I've seen disagree. Unless you're saying Judaism is the true beginnings of the Catholic Church? Which isn't *technically* wrong, but then it would go back to Abraham, or at least to Moses.
Think about this…. Earlier in matthew during christ’s temptation, satan tells christ to turn stones into bread. He didnt say petros. He used the word lithoi or lithos (plural) peter means the rock. Case closed…. If you still arent convinced check out jimmy akin’s debate where he breaks down the greek word for word. Another point that is rarely talked about is the word kai. Jesus says kai which means “upon this” if he meant a different rock the proper greek word would be alla So either peter is the rock or matthew’s grammar just fell to pieces in chapter 16. I could literally go on and on but it seems my apostolic brothers have already pointed multiple arguments. Most protestants accept peter’s leadership role they just say we take it too far. Fair play but to deny it altogether is crazy. For some old testament typology look into the Isiah 22 Eliakim argument. Basically david had 12 ministers and only the steward was given the keys to the kingdom. He is given authority to bind and loose, the keys were huge btw. History and language are key to understanding our faith so catholics and my orthodox brothers do a lot of studying on this stuff. The information is solid and easy to find
Who's denying that Peter was a leader? It's simply that he wasn't the foundation. That doesn't make sense. Christ organized His own Church and was teaching how people were to receive Christ through revelation. Peter knew he was a leader after that, but definitely not the foundation. That contradicts the Gospel.
@@pandorasrevelations9873 No it doesnt….. just your idea of what “gospel” means. Think about this…. Earlier in matthew Jesus says it is a wise man who builds his house on the rock. Jesus renames peter to yo the rock and says he will build his church upon that rock. Who is a wiser man that Jesus? I think the only way around this is to say that Jesus named Simon the rock because he is not the rock…. Upon which i will build my church…. If jesus is the foundation and the builder, so that he is building the church upon himself? He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom which you guys also cannot agree with. How can Peter have the keys of the kingdom when Jesus said he now has the keys of death and judgement? Jesus said what you bind in earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven. How can this be? Who has authority to bind Jesus or Peter? Christ gave them the authority to forgive or retain sins….. how can this be? Only god can forgive sins right? Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail but it must have if the protestant reformation was necessary. Jesus said if they will not listen to the church, let them be a gentile and tax collector? How can this be if the church forces you accept something you dont believe? St paul said the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth….. if that is so, why was the reformation necessary? I know you guys want to ignore any passages that would lead you to think Jesus gave ultimate authority to the church but its all over scripture. I hate to assume the worst in people but i really think protestants’ eyes must glaze over when you get to matthew 16-19. Or any passages that use the word “church” for that matter. The bible says submit to your elders…. Everyone who ever broke away from the church disobeyed that command from scripture. And if he will not listen to the church…… you guys can only get around these passages by ignoring them or down playing everything that is said, adding clauses to scripture, and flat out believing the opposite of what scripture says. What good is sola scriptura if you can simply reinterpret any passage to make it say what you want? The fallible interpreter becomes the authority for the infallible rule and at the end of the day, you are the one who is in charge. The elders submit to you or youll go somewhere else…. You lean on your own understanding, you twist paul’s words to your own destruction, you refuse to listen to the church but refuse to be treated like a tax collector…. christ prayed that we all remain one and you guys spit on that prayer when you celebrate reformation day. Its really sick and self serving to put yourself in charge of the meaning of scripture. Last thing…. If you want to do some further research, look at the Eliakim argument from isiah 22. King david had 12 ministers and only one (a prime minister) he gave the keys of the kingdom to. The steward…. He was given the keys of the kingdom, the ability to bind and loose. And yes it was a successive position!
For more on the Jewish background for this passage, I would recommend reading Isaiah chapter 22 verses 15 through 25. We see startlingly parallel wording when it comes to the installation of a royal Prime Minister in service to the dynasty of David’s family. And I say parallel specifically to the passage in Matthew 16.
I thought the same about the shaman and noticed something that I’m wondering if it’s significant. Right at the scene with the shaman, just before they cut away, an assistant hands the shaman his staff. Cut to Jesus who is walking with his staff, turns, and then hands it to Judas, who had previously been there. I’ve learned there’s little that’s done randomly in the show.
I’ve always believed that the rock is revelation. Right before he names Peter he says that it’s not flesh that has made this known to you, but it is my father. I think it is the revelation.
Then why change Simons name to Rock? Why not just say "upon this truth/revelation/fact I will build my church"? But no church is built of facts, no matter how important the facts, they are made of people! And a group of people needs a leader, or its just a chaotic mob.
I think The Chosen addressed your concern for having Jesus and His disciples so up close and personal to 'the gates of hell' when 'Jesus' points out how just like The Baptizer His disciples should not be afraid to be in dark places, so they can be the light evrywhere they went
The Church is built on Him. Remember, He tells us to build our house on Him. He is the one we are to rely on for everything. I believe that Peter was the leader of the ministry. James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. The point I am trying to make is that of the apostles, many had special places of leadership. Jesus gives us all we need and puts us where He needs us (if we will be obedient). I like how Jesus always reminds us that we must do things on His timetable. Also something we need to remember. I love that we can discuss this.
Also loved the explanation of the explanation of the Mesiah and told the disciples but charged them to keep it silent. Another great scene by Dallas and writers. ❤❤❤
There he is! To be fair was on chosen app yesterday watching the rest of the extras I either missed or it got too late for. But now the Snipe to break it down even more!
As a catholic I fully support Dallas interpretation. I knew this one was going to be spicy, as the series will go on, the different theologies will start to clash. Funny that Dallas is not even catholic However, Jesus gave the keys to Peter not to all of the apostles, and that was a mistake Dallas made
@@Pluvophil You know, I'm not so pleased with the way they went about this. I'm Catholic. Two things: 1. Petros and Petra mean exactly the same thing, the only reason they are distinct in Jesus' speach in Mt 16 is because Simon is a MAN. To call a MAN "Petra" which is FEMININE is incorrect. Jesus was making a PUN to convey His point: Peter HIMSELF (not only his confession, but he as a person) is THE ROCK, "and on THIS ROCK ("PETRA") I will found My Church" means that since the rock used as a foundation to a building was NECESSARILY in the feminine (because that's the original word for ROCK: PETRA - PIETRA in Italian), and Jesus was addressing SIMON as a MAN (ergo his whole person, not just his confession) that's why Jesus changes his name, because his whole person would be considered the rock and he happens to be a man, so the masculine version of rock - petra - would be PETROS (PIETRO in Italian) which is the modern name PETER. Just the fact that Simon's name is changed signifies that Jesus is referencing him as a person, not only his confession, otherwise why renaming him if Jesus was referencing only his confession but NOT the PERSON of Simon?? jimmyakin.com/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-5.html 2. I'm not totally happy with how Dallas chose to go about this, I'm actually quite disappointed. He's trying to walk the line and keep all denominations happy, but that's making no one really happy. Because if you notice in the scene, Jesus steps away from Simon and addresses the whole group when he says "to you I will give the keys of the Kingdom" which is CLEARLY incorrect, because in Scripture you clearly understand the keys being given to PETER, not to the whole group. It serves no purpose to conflate Mt16 and Mt18 together here, it creates more confusion than anything. But Dallas would not fully go the Catholic (true) route, otherwise the evangelicals would get bent out of shape like the gentleman in this video already is, as he is attempting to explain how he disagrees about Peter being the rock and believes the rock is actually his confession of faith (typical, unfounded, take which is really unbiblical I dare to say, because it is clear that Mt16 is referencing the PERSON of Simon and not just what he says - "my Father in Heaven revealed this to YOU!"). This may seem an exaggeration to some, but it's truly a big deal. I understand adding dialogue to explain things, because it's a show and you have artistic license to integrate plausible events that do not contradict Scripture. But the way they went about this CONTRADICTS Scripture, because that's not what Jesus words are clearly intending in Mt16 when He is addressing SIMON, and SIMON only. Come on. So now you have the Evangelicals getting bent out of shape although Dallas had Jesus basically give the keys to the whole group (as to have the story portrayed distance itself from the Catholic and correct understanding of Peter's role in Church), while at the same time still making it look a "bit" Catholic in that Simon IS the ROCK and not his confession only (ergo, Andrew going next to him and reiterating "The ROCK" to Simon's ear). This pleases NO ONE. It's a FAIL, I'm sorry to say. They want to steer clear of John 6 for the Bread of Life discourse because of how controversial it is among denominations? Fine. But do not go against Scripture, please! That's truly an abomination!
Please note that it is never my intention to offend. Respectfully, Peter was never the first pope nor was given the keys nor was declared the rock for the church. None of the apostles were chosen on that capacity. The Bible is clear on that. The Apostles Paul and Peter discussed that content in their letters. The Rock the Christ was referring to was Himself. Christ not Peter is the Rock (head of the church). See I Peter 2:4-8 Our Lord alone is the one with the keys to death. Christ Himself stated that in the book of Revelation. When Christ stated “on this rock I will build My church”, He was referring to this declaration Peter made when said Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Jehovah Himself. I think we can all agree that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. The ETERNAL, SELF-EXISTENT, UNCREATED ONE. The Source and Sustainer of all. To Whom our reverence and worship is owed. A purpose and privilege NEVER granted to any created being. I understand that there might theological clashes. And it never my intention to author disputes. I thought it appropriate to set things straight. I am only interested on what the bible has to say, unabridged and unaltered. I think for the sake of our souls we would profit plenty if we adhere to the bible as it is and to put away man made traditions that contradicts scripture. Chief among them, Peter as the first pontiff.
@lukewilliams448 I thought this as well, but at the same time noticed how Peter is clearly the leader of the group from this moment forward in the show. All of the other Apostles make a clear point of acknowledging that Peter has this special role among the group, so maybe Jesus looking around while giving his proclamation was simply to "make sure everyone is paying attention"...or maybe he's trying to toe the line. There's a very bad "out of context" line coming up in the final episode that is truly inexcusable.
For those wondering, this has been contested for two thousand years and is not this simply broken down. We need to be more charitable with eachother, we have a common enemy.
Thank you for adding to my understanding of Matthew 16:18. Regardless of how someone interprets “petra”and “petros”, this verse shows just how powerfully complex the Word of God really is.
Judas is like a petulant child. This will be the catalyst for his turning away and living for his own selfish desires. Luke does a great job of portraying his conflicted thoughts.
I'm sure that Peter's forgiveness of Matthew was him being the rock, the first deciple of Jesus to start to get it, the mind set of being a follower of Christ.
Because of Peter's statement of faith, when he later denies knowing Jesus, many Jews today believe that he is the betrayer. Judas was simply misguided in his own faith about what he expected the Messiah to be and do. But Peter knew and loved Jesus and then denied Him. Major betrayal.
If the actor, the role had been more involved with Andrew in mourning John's death it would have helped. His role has been smaller so far and less connected.
"Death has no power..." Thank You, Jesus!. "Because I live, you also will live" HALLELUJAH! What great writing foreshadowing what we've seen in the trailers of Jesus overcoming death on Lazarus' behalf!!!
Jesus/Yeshua saying He will build His church on “this rock” takes me back to the vision of the statue in Daniel 2 where “a stone not cut by human hands” strikes the statue on the feet and destroys the statue of the empires, and then the rock turns into a mountain and covers the whole world.
Also, its interesting to note that 4 verses after calling him Peter, Jesus called him Satan for trying to rebuke Him after revealing the sufferings He must go through in the future. In reality, Peter and John are the opposites. Peter boasting his love for Jesus, while John boasting of Jesus' love for him. This is very important in Christian living and a truth I might never see in The Chosen.
The gospels are clear that Jesus renamed Simon "Rock" and upon this rock, I will be my church. Everything you are saying is assumption. The truth is that the church Peter built in Rome became the center of Christianity and the Christian movement survived because of that. You are denying Christ's words, which are backed up by history. Jesus words about building his church on Peter is exactly what happened. To deny that is to deny what Jesus actually said and what actually happened.
Yeah we talked about this a bit later in the stream. Obviously everything comes from Jesus as I mention here. But all of these are metaphors, not literal things. We don’t have LITERAL keys to heaven, we have access to it. Jesus isn’t literally a cornerstone or a foundation. These are metaphors and different metaphors than the one we’re talking about here. Just my thought though 😬.
@@TheChosenSleuth But Jesus is the foundation.... without Him we are sinking sand. The church had to have a solid foundation to begin..... which is Jesus. Again, without that, we have nothing to build upon.
OMG....Do you see what you're saying??? Jesus started His Church, then sent The Holy Spirit....to guide them in all ways. What you said, negates everything Jesus said...and Died for. Unbelievable
@@crystalhaynes-sr5xw .... Please ask yourself... What is a Church ? Then .. Why is there a Church ? Where is the Church? How did a Church get where it is? Why ? Who Built it where it is ? Who is He ? Where is He from ? Who said ? How do they know ? Have you met Him ? When, How, Where... ? What's He like ? Where is He from? Where does He live ? What does He do for a living ? Does He have family around here ? Do you know anything about them ? Where is He now ? What is He doing there ? Why ? Is He coming back ? When ? What happens to His Church until then ? Who does He have, in His place, to encourage, and help His Church, the same way He has, and who knows what needs to be taken care of, and is there for them 24/7, because of Love, and nothing else ? WHO ??? Then, what happens ? Good GOD !!! How do you know all of this ??? !! What do 'you' think about all of this ? Maybe I need to check out this whole Church thing 🤔
@@lauriekurad Jesus started His Church through Peter. He said, "Upon this rock, I will build my Church." while addressing Peter. It is clear in the bible. Jesus gave Peter a mission and he followed it. He's not perfect but he always followed Jesus. You are so pressed about Peter. Please ask yourself too and ask the Holy Spirit's guidance for knowledge, wisdom, understanding, humility, and peace. Please don't negatively take this.
I absolutely agree that they would not have been right up close and personal at those pagan, demonic temples. But, I'm "used to different" with The Chosen 😂
@faye I don’t think that’s true in his human form, for example he wouldn’t go into a brothel or eat pork at a dinner party. These things would have been way out of order for any Jew. But who knows 🤷♂️
I'm certainly not a theologian but I like to listen to different opinions about the gospels. I'd like to know what you think of Brant Pitre's talk "The Jewish Roots of the Papacy" given 5 years ago but easy to find on RUclips. Stick with it to the end, very interesting.
To understand Peter's role, it's important to understand that the role of the Pope now, is not the way that role was early on. So if you say that Peter didn't hold the role as the Papacy is understood in modern times, you're correct. However, it's not that simple. Peter is not being set up over and above the other apostles but as a leader and protector, someone who keeps the group together and on the right path. In Eastern Orthodoxy this is called the Ecumenical Patriarch. He is first among equals. Jesus said "Whoever is first among you, let him be your servant." It's not a position of power and prestige that others don't have, it's a responsibility that Peter has to all of them from this point, and especially following the ascension and Pentecost. All the of the Apostles will recieve the priesthood, and the authority to preach and act on God's authority, to bind and loose, heal, ect, just like we saw in Season 3 and as they go out into the world and bring many people in and set up local congregations, they will maintain a relationship with these early Christian communities as a guiding authority for them. We see this in the New Testament, but who keeps all of them straight? Initially, it's Peter.
Peter is the Rock. Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic and the word in Aramaic (Kephas) is the same word used both times in that statement and… Peter is also called Cephas in the Bible.
Who died and made Brandon the correct interpreter of scriptures? Why do you believe him over some other person? I suspect it's because his interpretation jibes with yours ... so you're apt to believe him. But that doesn't make him right. In fact, he's not.
Something else I noticed about Judas. His eyes look very sunken and dark, he looks haggard. I’m thinking it’s intentional, but not sure the significance.
Why do protestants continue to make what Jesus said to Peter confusing by trying to make sense of the Greek translation of Rock. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Rock is Kephas (Cephas) where there is no confusion about what Jesus said and meant to Peter. Jesus made Peter the foundation of his Church. Jesus is the Head, the cornerstone, of his Church. If the Bible is read in proper context, Peter was the head of the apostles in virtually every situation. Jesus meant for Peter to lead his Church. This whole problem of trying to find a proper translation of Aramaic to Greek introduces the Petros/Petra confusion of what was meant. The Aramaic word for Rock, Kephas/Cephas, does not have male-female sense of the words which introduces the problems with large vs. small rock, Petros vs. Petra. Using the Aramaic eliminates the problems with the translation of Aramaic to Greek. Peter was the Rock and Jesus meant him to be the prime minister of his Church on earth.
"No he's not". in the Thumbnail lol Another ploy to steer people away from the fact that when Jesus mentioned the "Rock" he was in fact referring to Peter. Nice try. Didn't work though
peter is the foundation 0f the church because the holy spirit will rule that church as is related in the church council in acts of the apostles. it says that "such is our decision and the decision of the holy spirit" for the 1st time the outcome of spiritual growth and church governance will not depend on a man but on a man filled with the holy spirit and the church as we see in acts is also directly governed by the holy spirit.
Also like the lesson of how John the Baptizer was faithful. Powerful lesson when you think about modern culture. The lesson is, no matter what is going on around you….its what’s in you (aka faith) that guides your actions
If Jesus meant that the rock on which the church would be built was Peter, the other apostles didn’t come away with that understanding because they soon after are arguing about who is the greatest among them. That is telling. In Ephesians chapter 2:19-20, Paul says God’s people are members of his household “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Here, all of the apostles are foundation stones but Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Certainly Peter was the lead apostle in many ways, but to say the entire church, the Body of Christ, was built upon him says too much. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock) because of his confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus is making a contrast between the foundation rock on which the gates of Hell was built upon, which was Mt. Hermon and the foundation rock on which the church would be built, which is the confession that Jesus is the Christ of the Living God.
@@chelseabradham3889 That’s true they didn’t understand cryptic messages such as parables which needed to be explained to them or when Jesus spoke of his death and resurrection which they had no reference for and were not expecting a dying and rising messiah. When did they get an explanation for the meaning of rock like they did with the other misunderstandings? Those who view Peter as the foundation rock which the church was built upon think Jesus was speaking very clearly about this. If it was that clear, why didn’t the apostles get it? They could follow other seemingly clear teachings but not this one. Besides, the sentence structure is awkward for Peter being the rock on which the church would be built. Jesus could have said “You are Peter and upon *you* I will build my church”, instead of “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”.
Could be Jesus renamed Simon as soon as he met him because one of his brothers was named Simon. However, there were two James ' so now we have lots of confusion!
The Greek and the Aramaic is so clear in this passage though. "You are kepa and on this kepa I will build my Church." The Greek: κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι Ἅιδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. "I also tell you that you are Petros, and on this same petra I will build my Church." Taute means "this", "the same" or "this same." Taute is word that points to the noun in the earlier clause that being "rock." The whole exchange is Jesus talking about Peter and revealing who he is and what he will become. Some people have tried to disparage the "Catholic" aka the most natural reading of the passage by saying that Petros and Petra are different words. However, it could just as well be synthetic parallelism, where the second idea builds on the first.“You may appear to be a small stone, but on the big rock you really are..." Jesus makes a revelation about Peter but Jesus does not then without warning change the subject he is talking about. There is no indication or warning that Jesus is talking about Peter's confession or talking about Himself as the rock. Jesus is talking about Peter the whole time whether you like that or not.
I am pretty sure Jesus and the disciples did actually go to the gates of hell because that was where Jesus said on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail, thereby reclaiming the land that Satan held as his own, setting the stage for Satans destruction. DR, Micheal Heiser does a great seminar on this very subject,
People do realize there was an actual rock rising out of the pool with a statue of mithra sitting on it at the time, the romans built an aqueduct to keep the rock above water.
Folks, please do not confuse the chosen show with scripture. It is a wonderful show that brings alive the times of the Bible, but it does have scriptural errors at times. Read your own Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand and go back into the original languages. It’s very easy nowadays with Electronic apps that you can get that have the original languages. They are called interlinear Bibles. Yeshua Jesus is the rock. He is the cornerstone
Brandon, good post and I understand what your thought process is. My question is why you don't take a deeper dive into Matthew 16:19. In this Jesus says "YOU" multiple times to Peter about the keys to heaven and what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Why can't it be both- the confession of the statement that Jesus is the Christ and Jesus affirming that Peter be a leader of the church, which Peter was, there is no denying that, regardless of whatever denomination you are.
@@TheChosenSleuth Even in the rest of the season, they portray Peter is THE leader among the Apostles. You may not know this, but the Kingdom of David had an officer called the "al bayith" who was the "over the house" or the chief steward of the king's affairs. He had binding authority, and his office was signified by the clothing he wore and the keys that he carried. In Isaiah 22, the Lord speaks of how he will remove the current al bayith (Shebna) and install a new one (Eliakim). The office persists even when the current holder departs. Jesus, the new Davidic King, gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom" and gives him binding authority. He is establishing a new "al bayith" for the Kingdom of Heaven, which is what Peter is. He is given an office, which persists even after he dies. Watch this video for a further explanation: ruclips.net/video/PWkmMNvr_to/видео.htmlsi=5ItQXapQMdmHSoSy
Sorry, but Jesus sent The Holy Spirit to Oversee His Church. Not Peter. There are many instances when GOD was addressed as The Rock. "The Rock of my salvation" Peter was not the salvation. Peter was not GOD.
@@lauriekurad None of us are saying that Peter is God. None of us are saying that Peter is salvation. We are simply repeating what Jesus said: Simon is Peter. And the name Peter means rock. It would be incredibly strange for Jesus to change Simon's name to "Rock" and then refer to a completely different "Rock" on which he is building his Church. The Kingdom of David had officers and a clear king. Jesus, the Son of David, has officers in his Kingdom. He is clearly the King, but he provides officers for his Kingdom on earth (aka the Church). When Jesus says that he is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom, he is making a reference to an office that was held in the Kingdom of David: the "al bayith" or the "over the house", the chief steward who was charged with handling the king's day-to-day affairs, which including making binding decisions. As has been mentioned several times, an example of this can be found in Isaiah 22. What else would it mean for Jesus to give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter? What else would it mean for Jesus to tell Peter that Peter's binding and loosing of anything on earth will also be bound and loosed in Heaven?
As Nick Vujicic says - "I'm standing at the gates of hell redirecting traffic!" The Church redirects traffic to Jesus and our True & Living God. Jesus did *not* make Simon Peter infallible (and neither is the Pope!)
Protestant scholar D.A. Carson notes: Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “[small] stone” and “[large] rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kêphā’ was used in both clauses (“you are kêphā’ and on this kêphā’”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Matt. 16:18). He further notes: “Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun-and that is just the point!” (ibid.). Although Jesus’ words could have been translated into Greek using petros in both cases (“You are petros and on this petros”), petra may appear in the second instance simply to avoid using the same word too closely in quick succession. Avoiding repetition by using a synonym is often an important element of style (so much so that it is the reason pronouns exist). Even if we were to grant that petros and petra referred to small and large stones respectively, this would not show Peter isn’t the rock. That interpretation assumes antithetic parallelism, where the two are contrasted (“You are a small stone, but on this other big rock . . . ”). However, it could just as well be synthetic parallelism, where the second idea builds on the first (“You may appear to be a small stone, but on the big rock you really are . . . ”).
It is a shame that we did not get the Bread of Life discourse, but along with Peter being the foundational Rock, this might have been too much for Protastants to digest…
I always perceived what Jesus said about the rock is that it’s Peter’s faith. And on His people’s faith He will build His church…. 🤷♀️ But in keeping with the pebble vs mountain face…. Each believer is a stone to build the church but the faith in Jesus is the foundation stone.
So what about the passage makes you think the demonstrative pronoun "this" (used in "this rock") refers to Peter's profession of faith rather than in Peter himself? In verses 17, 18, and 19 ... Christ begins each verse talking about Peter (17: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah ...", 18: "And so I say to you ...", 19: "I will give you ...". Christ is referring to Peter, over, and over, and over. And just ask yourself this. Why, oh why, would Christ have gone with the new name Kefa and then referred to the kefa, as a cornerstone? What would be the point of that word play if he meant the 2nd kefa to refer to the profession of faith? Using the same word twice makes it clear that Peter is that rock.
About what Jesus says on Matthew 16:18, He is not talking about Peter (Simon) here. The Rock, Jesus talking about is the one Peter (Simon) has said in the previous verse Matt 16:16 “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” this is the one of the foundation of the Church that we stand on this Rock, on this Truth!, that we believe and follow Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This is the Rock we stand on! this is the Truth! Jesus is our Cornerstone, and the Living Stone. (Ephesians 2:19-22 & 1 Peter 2:4-9)
I agree that the "rock" which the church is built upon is revelation from God the father via the holy ghost. This is how Simon Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, the son of God the father.
Explain personal revelation because Jesus clearly affirmed that Simon now Peter received personal revelation. It was not completely personal faith on Peter’s part it was on personal revelation received by Peter Therefore Jesus is talking about building the church on personal revelation
Personal Revelation means that GOD put the thought in Peter's head, like GOD does with all of us, all the time, and Peter did not come up with that statement on his own. The Holy Spirit can be with us, reminding us and guiding us, in all things. Most just don't listen. I hope this' helps. GOD Bless🌹
We are now living in a time where we cannot go by what other people tell us what is in the Bible. We need to be reading the Bible To discern for ourselves. I do have a love and hate relationship with this show. There are so many parts of the show that are amazing but then there are parts that are so unbiblical. In Matthew 15:16 Peter confessed that Jesus is Christ. The rock is that He is the Christ. If you read in verse 22 Peter starts rebuking Christ and Jesus in turn rebuked him. Peter was a very Flawed person just like every other person in the Bible except for one. Christ is The Rock. We need to realize that this is just a secular show about Jesus and not entirely biblically accurate. We need to be reading the Bible ourselves. Reading the Word is a life changer! ❤❤
I'm truly thinking of not watching any longer. Dallas is more concerned about pleasing a certain group of people, than he is about portraying Biblically. Regardless of the way he portrayed the interaction between Simon and Jesus ... The other disciples never acted the way Dallas portrays them. They, according to The Bible...never said a word about it, and Simon was never portrayed as im charge of anything . It is one thing to fool with the Characters, but another to change Biblical Doctrine.
I always thought he was talking about himself as he is referred to as the Chief Cornerstone. But it makes sense with Petra being a huge piece of stone like a mountain. The idea of it being faith is interesting. I will be looking into that more for sure.
When Matthew realized the "much worse" that Little James mentioned, I wonder if people would have less questions if a depiction of pan was shown as he looked up/off in the distance. Not explaining it outright in dialogue, like you did by asking those pertinent questions, leaves the door of exploration open. If someone really wants to know they will search for the answers and find what you explained so well and more about the goats at Cesarea Phillipi
Peter in Hebrew is Cephas. It means Rock. It is very similar to the name Caiaphas which shares the same Hebrew root meaning rock. Jesus was literally making Peter His first High Priest.
Christ is saying that He will build His church (the gathering of those who repent and come to Him) upon this rock. The rock is revelation from God to you, personally, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The difference between what I am saying and The Chosen Sleuth's explanation is actual KNOWLEDGE, vs merely believing. God gave this knowledge to Peter, and God can give this knowledge to YOU. Notice that when Jesus "I will give you keys to the kingdom of heaven", he was speaking to ALL the disciples, not just Peter. As a further witness, Jesus said again to His disciples: Matt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
@@TheChosenSleuthDid Jesus want 4300 different religions? Every one of these have their own interpretations and if they don’t agree, they start a new church. THAT’S why Peter is the foundation. You have to have authority or you can interpret whatever you want like you did.
Thank you you’re the first person I ve heard that agreed with me. That’s how I understood it. On this revelation I AM THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
[Former Protestant] I wanted to see and address this video because there is a claim in a more recent video that people were mad about the things stated in this video. This is my understanding of what is happening:
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 16:18]
Of course, the distinction being made here between the two (Petros and petra) by the video would be irrelevant since it wouldn't change the fact that He (Jesus) would still be addressing St. Peter as foundational to His Church (small rock or otherwise). The video further emphasizes this distinction by bringing up pictures of what we would imagine the difference of Petros and petra to be. This again, would be irrelevant as Christ himself says you need only small faith to do big things [Matthew 17:20]. The size of the rock would be irrelevant (and Jesus makes no emphasis of it) to the establishing of His Church. Only that He is calling out St. Peter alone in specific for this specific moment.
There is also a claim that things would have been said differently if it was meant differently. But no example was given. As a Spanish speaker, I can definitely say that in other languages, words can change for the same object in the same sentence. This would be understanding coming from an English-speaker centered mindset.
The video goes on to say that Jesus is not the rock/Church. But then why would scripture mention a rock at all if neither St. Peter nor Jesus are the foundational rocks of the Church? The video expresses that it would be St. Peter's confession of faith that would be the foundational rock but then that just seems like a roundabout way of trying not to say St. Peter is the rock. Naturally, if his confession is important, then so is he who made the confession. It is a distinction without a difference. If it is just anyone's faith, then he (St. Peter) would not have been elevated in the first place.
The next claim is that God the father gave this knowledge to St. Peter which is absolutely true [Matthew 16:17]. But this doesn't mean he (St. Peter) had to make the confession. Just like the video mentions, the demons know who God and Christ is but do not do the same confession of faith [James 2:19]. Action (or cooperation with God's grace if you will) is still required to move forward with the gifts God gives.
"Peter is not the foundation of what the Church is built on. That could never be the case." I'm not sure where this is coming from. The Lord has used so many people throughout history to accomplish His ends and there's no reason to doubt that He could not use anyone He wishes to carry out His will. If merely being a sinner was an automatic disqualification for doing Godly things, then we would not have scripture to begin with. Saying God is incapable of using a human being for His purpose seems to be quite limiting of God.
Overall, I do wish to be as charitable as possible. I was curious if people were really upset but I do not think people are mad. Simply put, there are tons of flaws in logic and fallacies at play here. The video has many claims and statements of speculation of what is meant by the word Petros and its significance. But no substantive evidence is given to support these particularly subjective interpretations of scripture. Mostly, these claims seem to aim to have "plausible deniability" of the papal system or something like it. It is just personal interpretation [Proverbs 3:5-6]. To find the original meaning to this, you'd need the one holy Church that Jesus established and gave authority to in order to come close to properly answering this question. And for that, a study of Church history would be necessary.
I can see so clearly, that (in the Chosen) Simon went through such a painful time losing a child, came back to Jesus asking not to be let go, realising hls need for Jesus, experiencing His mighty power. Of course it's so right for Simon to make this heartfelt confession. Shahar's expression was priceless and beautiful!❤😊
This scene with Jonathan and Shahar was so moving to me. Their delivery us amazing!! I'm so glad Dallas put this scene in.
The Apostolic churches have so many historical records regarding Apostolic Succession from St. Peter himself, who is really the first pope. And also another disciples. I'd rather listen and believe on the Apostles and the early church fathers who closest to them instead of modern Christianity who deny and rejected the early church fathers.
Again you believe in secondary sources ie your priests.
Early Apostolic fathers didn't talk about the Pater or Pope, all of which is later accretion and error When Rome became prominent for Christianity in 4th century, the bishop at Rome became prominent.
I would say that the Real pope in that sense is James the Just, he was the First Bishop of Jerusalem the mother church. what is Rome, nothing.
@@sciencescholar3440
1. Early Christian writings: Some early Christian writings, such as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John the Apostle) and the First Letter of Clement, suggest a special status for the church in Rome and its leadership. These writings indicate that the church in Rome held a position of prominence and authority in the early Christian community.
2. Early church fathers: Early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius of Caesarea wrote about the primacy of the church in Rome and the role of Peter in its foundation. These writings provide some historical support for the belief that Peter was associated with the church in Rome.
@@Pluvophil... Because The Roman Church wanted to make Peter the Head.
Just a side note...Jesus also said not to call man your father, for your father is in Heaven
@@lauriekurad if you interpret it that way, you can't call your father "father", isn't that right?
@KnightofTheHolyRosary77 God bless you!
Remember back in a season one walk and talk, Jesus told Peter he didn't need his leadership capabilities then because Jesus was still here. Once Jesus was gone, Peter would take on the leadership role.
Corinthians 3:11.
For no man can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Christ is the foundation, not Peter. The church wasn't founded on Peter, but on the Truth that Peter spoke when he said, "I say you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". The church is built on Jesus being the Son of God. That's the founding stone. It's not built on Peter. Is Peter the founding member of Jesus' church? Yes, but Peter wasn't Catholic, and he was never called the head of the church, let alone Pope. Peter, Paul, the rest of the apostles and many disciples led the church working together, and seeing Jesus as the head of His church .
Jesus said the first would be last, and the last would be first. Peter would Never have called himself the first or the head of the church, and he never would have allowed anyone else to call him the first or the head of the church. He always deferred to Christ as the leader, and always conferred and decided matters involving the church with the other founding members.
Jesus is called the Rock all throughout the old and new testament. Jesus is the foundation Rock, the Cornerstone, according to Scripture.
Please read and study the scriptures for yourself. Don't just take someone's word for it. God reveals Himself to each of us through His Holy Word. That's the guaranteed way to find Him. Read His love letter to humanity that we call the Bible, and ask the Holy Spirit for God's wisdom and understanding in your mind
I pray you find the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. Love and blessings to you, on the MIGHTY name of Jesus. ❤️
Your correct Jesus was making his church on earth yes Jesus is the cornerstone but he needed a leader which is Peter the rock , it’s silly to fight this it says what is says now if you think Peter was the last leader fine but I believe his leadership was handed down
@@annb9029 leadership is inherited from God, not handed down by men.God calls one to preach and teach. That means that Peter didn't sanction every leader of Jesus' church. Also, Peter wasn't Catholic. He was Jewish, practicing his Jewish faith, in fulfillment of Scripture.
History doesn't record an actual Roman Catholic Pope until the 3rd century.
Peter was a leader among many leaders of the early church. He deferred to Christ as the head, and saw his fellow apostles and disciples as all being chosen leaders.
@annb9029 of course it was handed down. That's the definition of papal succession. There is a direct line just as Matthew outlined in Jesus' lineage. The papal succession shows 266 popes after St. Peter.
The name Peter is directly from Greek Πέτρος, Petros (an invented, masculine form of Greek petra, the word for "rock" or "stone"), which itself was a translation of Aramaic Kefa ("stone, rock"), the new name Jesus gave to apostle Simon Bar-Jona. So yes ...Jesus meant Peter personally 😂
Nope. Petros is the little Rock, Petra means rock. Jesus is the cornerstone of the Church. The faith te Apostle Peter confessed in that verse is what the Church was built on...Faith in Jesus Christ alone
@@drkatherine20 Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Greek translation introduces confusion. There's no confusion in Aramaic. But look at context. Jesus had told his disciples to eat His body and some followers left Him. But He doubled down. Then He asked if His apostles would leave Him too. Simon spoke up and Jesus recognized Him carefully by name (Simon, son of Jonah), saying that His Heavenly Father, not mere man had informed him. And then, similar to Abram to Abraham, Jesus renamed Simon to Peter and further granted authority (keys). These events were personal to Peter, not an ambiguous, vacillating series of events describing a philosophy.
@KenPaulsenArchitect he didn’t ONLY speak Aramaic. He would’ve spoken Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
@@TheChosenSleuth He could have spoken other languages, but it's likely He didn't because conversations were in Aramaic. Besides, the context makes it clear. This was a pivotable moment. Clarity was essential. In recognizing, identifying to whom He would pass authority, and extending that authority (keys), He couldn't have been more precise. He knew the devil would attempt to confuse interpretations of His Word. So He was very precise.
@@KenPaulsenArchitect … It was indeed pivotal, and the devil gained a strong foothold, to cause a hell of a lot of stumbling. Good thing I read Isaiah.
If you want to look at Peter's role, which Jesus is telling Peter here, look in the book of Acts. What do keys do? They open the door! Who preached the first sermon on the day of Pentecost? That was the first day of the week. It was the beginning of the church. But... that was only Jews! Even Peter would not understand until later that the church was for ALL! And who did Jesus use to open the door for the Gentiles? Yep, Peter again brought the gospel to the house of Cornelius! So, Peter was truly given the keys to the kingdom! Very cool!!
God is so good to us! Praise His Holy name!🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻👑💕🕊🆙🆙🆙
Hence the Pope’s keys 💡
Peter was one of the apostles who was given the opportunity to be first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. But that is all, and is consistent with all of the inspired scriptures, including the words of Peter himself. 1 Peter 5:1-3 Peter was married. Peter was married. Peter didn't allow himself to be worshipped. Peter was fallible and corrected by Paul. The Bible is clear that Jesus is head of the church. We must follow His will. He is not just our savior, but our Lord!
@@tennesseeturner Truth!
1 Corinthians 11:3
"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God".
God "gave Him to be the head over all things to the church".
Ephesians 1:22
God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church".
This verse indicates that Jesus rules over everything at the will of God the Father, and that both the Father and the Son reign together over all created things, including the church. Paul develops this theme in more detail in chapter 5.
It'd be easier to just take what Jesus said that Peter is the Rock as what it is. The Protestant mental gymnastics and self-denial is really a bit much.
Sing it, sister. It's amazing that protestants want "the plain truth of the Bible" but then do this. Similarly with John 6.
this. Chosen Sleuth is so analytical and inquisitive in all other accounts, but when it comes to this topic the mental gymnastics really pirouette to allow his theological view.
Thank you. I should have gone further into the comments before I commented because you said it more clearly and succinctly than I tried to do.
I was thinking the exact same thing. We cannot all have a separate way to understand these verses to fit our lives and our understanding. Lord, help us have the right understanding and vision.
Tradition is how Jesus' teachings originate from and not the Bible. Traditions precede the Bible. Shoutout to my fellow Catholics and Christians as a whole. God bless you!
Peter is the ROCK, in the sense/sense’s, that GOD revealed the truth and gave him the clarity of belief in Jesus, the faith. ALSO, in my faith, the earthly founder of the church, and the compassionate believer. The gatekeeper. Metaphorically the Foundation. Jesus is the actual founder, foundation, the ONE who we FOLLOW. Jesus is the CHRIST.
Thanks!
Brant Pitre and Steve Ray go in depth and talk about the Jewish roots/meaning of the keys the chair, the rock. The neverending debates often overlooks the Jewish lens. They each have books on it but seveal good videos of their lectures are on You Tube as well. Pitre has a PhD and has studied these things in depth, going back to the Jewish roots.
Yes! Brant does an excellent job (as does Steve). We need to look at these passages as though we were 1st century Jews.
@@Nicole_Marie_ I agree, an excellent and thorough book.
Your knowledge of the original land / surroundings and context with the Scripture is marvelous. So glad I found your channel.
Peter is the foundation Jesus, would build his Church on: He is the one that would lead the church from the beginning
.
Also, Jesus, gave the keys of His Kingdom to only one individual and that was Peter.
Okay 😂
@@TheChosenSleuthI’m begging you to one day do a Bible study on Samuel and his neverending frustration with the human need to make kings and gods out of other men. 🙏 😂
@grogu-the-mandalorian you can not redact history as much as you try to. I can suggest some reading for you to avail yourself of. 😃
He's not going to take what you say seriously. He just spent this entire video doing some serious mental gymnastics over the translation of Peter. Jesus changed the man's name, and now we debate the translation of the word "Peter" in different languages, and genders, to talk our way out of the idea of the Catholic church.
Wrong. Read the Scriptures for yourself, and not what you've heard some minister say. The pronoun "you" is in the Greek, 'you all." In English, it's just "you" for either one person or for more than one person. So Jesus was saying that all of the disciples (us included) the keys to the kingdom. The BIGGER question is, what are those keys? I think it's metaphoric for the keys of UNDERSTANDING the Kingdom of God and how to lead others to God--not actual keys to locked doors, but hope that will lead believers to an understanding that though they may die, they will live again, because their graves will be opened at the Second Coming. These keys of understanding and believing the gospel will LOOSE the sleeping saints from their graves, and they are BOUND for God's Kingdom. You have to look at it in the language of Christ's parables, and the language of the Second Coming.
I saw your show by accident after another Chosen reflection moment. I'm so glad this 'accident' happened!
And YES, I subscribed.
That cut to Judas was strategic. He got cut by Jesus' words, but didn't realize he was bleeding!
Makes sense. On this "faith" (revelation) I will build my Church.
Its not petra, it is not peter, it is not Petros. It is Kephas and in Aramaic it mean rock❤
K, but in the transcripts we have (which are many) this is indeed very clear in the Greek. And even Cephas holds the same understanding as I’m saying here. Peter was a leader of the early church, but to elevate him more than he was is a disservice to him and to what Christ was trying to say here.
@@TheChosenSleuthright
@@TheChosenSleuthyou are performing eisegesis to conform to your notions.
Be a sleuth investigating the first generations of Christians in their primary sources.
Read the writings of the earliest Christians who were contemporaries or disciples of Peter, John, Paul, like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, as well as of their students to see what they understood from the Apostles and the authors of the New Testament.
@@MichaelGlowacki Good recommendation. Happy finding that they don't side with either camps🤣
@@TheChosenSleuth Peter is not elevated, and neither is the pope, both are just leaders. Also, the Greek distinction between petros and petra was no longer used at that time.
The Mormon church teaches or taught that upon " this rock I will build my church." Previous to this statement Christ talks about the revelation that Peter received. That he knows Jesus is the Christ because the Father revealed it to Simon or Peter as he is now called. It is about receiving revelation that the church will be built upon. Just sharing....
The words directly before "upon this rock" ... is the blessing given to Peter (his name change). It's not about his revelation. Why, oh why, would Christ have chosen to use the word play "You are Peter" and "upon this rock" ... if he wasn't drawing a through line to Peter, as the foundation? Why add that layer of confusion, if that's not what He meant?
@@kdmdlo Interesting questions. Why did Jesus choose the words he chose? Good question. I don't know. Isn't the whole Bible filled with riddles by Jesus? Anyway Let us suppose you are right. If Peter is the church foundation, does this die when Peter does? So Peter was such a great man that the Gates of Hades shall no prevail against it with his current knowledge?? Jesus says of Peter that "blood and flesh did not reveal it, but the father."..... that Jesus is the Christ. How did the Father do that?? By letter? By a pigeon? I am not sure any man is great enough or smart enough to prevail. My belief is that the Ancient prophets were given a revelation(s) just like Peter. How else does a man prevail against Hades? If you were given revelation couldn't that assist you to being more prepared for future events? Can't the Father revel things today? It is okay that we disagree. We are just talking here.
Brandon, even MATTHEW in this episode recognized Peter as being tapped as a leader who possesses the Keys To The Kingom with Jesus at the fireside chat. Arguing about a rock and a pebble is honestly comical.😅
It's a standard Protestant explanation of this passage. Yes, Matthew may have recognized Peter as a leader, but when Matthew wrote in Greek he *did* use the different words Petros and Petra, drawing a distinction at some level.
@MusicBlik that wordplay, stone vs rock vs pebble I'd ludicrous
@@reginapontes5672 A little bit, yeah, but it's one way to get around the idea of Peter being the first Pontiff. Myself, I have an alternate interpretation, that the Church is built on the "rock" of *revelation* which Jesus mentioned in the previous verse--attestations through the Holy Spirit and the conviction of personal testimony that brings are what steadies the Church, rather than relying on a man (even as sturdy a man as Peter became post-Pentecost). Rather than the Apostles themselves, it was the office they held--and the authority implicit in that office to receive revelation for the Church--which was what was important.
@MusicBlik Remember too Brandon and others are refusing to address The Keys To The Kingdom Discourse that appeared in OT Isaiah 22::22 correlating it to what Jesus did with Peter "the Rock" scene.
I'm sorry, I usually love your deep dives. However the mental gymnastics you go through to try to disprove that Peter was the foundation of the church lacks common sense. It is clear from the Aramaic translation of the Rock, PLUS, the wealth of other evidence in the Bible that Peter was obviously the leader of the apostles. It looks like the only reason you and other protestants don't want to believe it because it's too "Catholic."
And when we call Brandon the Sleurth, we don't mean that he is actually the Sleuth, we mean that his confession of "Let's do a deep dive" is the belief in sleuthiness that we pursue!!
Come on people....
@@danscott419 Jesus said to Simon “You are Rock.” However, you say in your comment, “Peter is not the Rock.” You’re directly contradicting Jesus in your comment. Think about it.
Maybe Luther was wrong. What then? You put your faith in a guy who came along 1500 years later?
@patrickevans6712
Hi Patrick. I appreciate your reply from several days ago. Here's my reply:
The highlight and key point Jesus presents in the lesson to His disciples is twofold:
He says that Simon did not know who He is from "flesh and blood" but that the knowledge came from the Father.
Flesh and blood do not last and would not last throughout the centuries to come. But, His Father does.
An everlasting and living foundation, one worth building His Church on because it will last, and last permanently, is the key point.
In many of the lessons Jesus taught, He gives what something is and He gives what something isn't.
In Matthew 16:17 He does this very clearly:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
In that verse, He said what it is and what it isn't. "It"... being the knowledge of who Jesus is... and that He isn't Ezekiel, Jeremias, or other prophets.
Perhaps this will help:
John 14:10-30
10 "...but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
"He doeth the works," which includes all works. This includes revealing to the followers of Jesus, down through the ages yet to come, that Jesus is the Son of the living God. Just like how Simon knew, all those who would come unto the Lord will also know, through the Father.
Peter, a man of flesh and blood, would eventually pass away. But the Father does not.
There is no stronger foundation to build upon than the word of the Father Himself.
Jesus came to do His Father's will, not His own will.
Jesus pointedly distinguishes the differences between information coming from flesh and blood and true knowledge coming from His Father.
Jesus makes His cautionary point of trusting in the Father rather than trusting in men... of flesh and blood, who cannot know assuredly... alone and on their very own.
Along the paths and roadways between cities and towns in those days, the road signs were made of rock. They were guide stones. This is who and what Simon would become as Peter.
He would become an integral part in guiding people to the foundation, which is the word of the Father.
Once they are there, the Father "doeth the works" of converting.
That the Father can and does reveal to all hearts who come unto Jesus, that Jesus is His Son, this is the living and everlasting foundation worth building on.
I've been waiting for these season 4 videos for a awhile! Cant wait to see more!
I find it entertaining and distressing at the same time, when modern preachers try to explain scripture and like Martin Luther, bend it to fit what they want it to mean. The early church fathers, the ones who either knew and heard Jesus preach, or knew and heard the Apostles preach, all had an understanding of what Jesus meant. They all accepted that Jesus chose Peter as the one to lead his church when he was gone. Unfortunately, to accept this, and to accept many of the sacred traditions of the original church founders, would be to admit that the Catholic church is the one true and universal church founded by Jesus. So rather than accept this, and accept the teachings of the people who were there at the beginning, too many are willing to follow preachers who claim to know better than the Apostles what it is that Jesus meant.
When you know better you know better.
Okay, so accepting that Peter was chosen to lead the church, from do we derive that Jesus decried that Peter would have successors who would lead with the same authority ?
Actually the Catholic Church was founded hundreds of years before Jesus. Check it out.
@@timothym2241 This comes from the early church tradition as understood by the church fathers. These were the people who spoke directly to Jesus and who were blessed with the knowledge of the Holy Spirit at pentecost. I trust that guided by the Holy Spirit, They knew better than we do.
@@clydewilliams7061 What's your source for Catholicism predating Jesus? Catholic sources I've seen disagree. Unless you're saying Judaism is the true beginnings of the Catholic Church? Which isn't *technically* wrong, but then it would go back to Abraham, or at least to Moses.
Think about this…. Earlier in matthew during christ’s temptation, satan tells christ to turn stones into bread. He didnt say petros. He used the word lithoi or lithos (plural) peter means the rock. Case closed…. If you still arent convinced check out jimmy akin’s debate where he breaks down the greek word for word. Another point that is rarely talked about is the word kai. Jesus says kai which means “upon this” if he meant a different rock the proper greek word would be alla
So either peter is the rock or matthew’s grammar just fell to pieces in chapter 16. I could literally go on and on but it seems my apostolic brothers have already pointed multiple arguments. Most protestants accept peter’s leadership role they just say we take it too far. Fair play but to deny it altogether is crazy. For some old testament typology look into the Isiah 22 Eliakim argument. Basically david had 12 ministers and only the steward was given the keys to the kingdom. He is given authority to bind and loose, the keys were huge btw. History and language are key to understanding our faith so catholics and my orthodox brothers do a lot of studying on this stuff. The information is solid and easy to find
Who's denying that Peter was a leader? It's simply that he wasn't the foundation. That doesn't make sense. Christ organized His own Church and was teaching how people were to receive Christ through revelation. Peter knew he was a leader after that, but definitely not the foundation. That contradicts the Gospel.
@@pandorasrevelations9873 No it doesnt….. just your idea of what “gospel” means. Think about this…. Earlier in matthew Jesus says it is a wise man who builds his house on the rock. Jesus renames peter to yo the rock and says he will build his church upon that rock. Who is a wiser man that Jesus? I think the only way around this is to say that Jesus named Simon the rock because he is not the rock…. Upon which i will build my church…. If jesus is the foundation and the builder, so that he is building the church upon himself? He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom which you guys also cannot agree with. How can Peter have the keys of the kingdom when Jesus said he now has the keys of death and judgement? Jesus said what you bind in earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven. How can this be? Who has authority to bind Jesus or Peter? Christ gave them the authority to forgive or retain sins….. how can this be? Only god can forgive sins right? Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail but it must have if the protestant reformation was necessary. Jesus said if they will not listen to the church, let them be a gentile and tax collector? How can this be if the church forces you accept something you dont believe? St paul said the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth….. if that is so, why was the reformation necessary? I know you guys want to ignore any passages that would lead you to think Jesus gave ultimate authority to the church but its all over scripture. I hate to assume the worst in people but i really think protestants’ eyes must glaze over when you get to matthew 16-19. Or any passages that use the word “church” for that matter. The bible says submit to your elders…. Everyone who ever broke away from the church disobeyed that command from scripture. And if he will not listen to the church…… you guys can only get around these passages by ignoring them or down playing everything that is said, adding clauses to scripture, and flat out believing the opposite of what scripture says. What good is sola scriptura if you can simply reinterpret any passage to make it say what you want? The fallible interpreter becomes the authority for the infallible rule and at the end of the day, you are the one who is in charge. The elders submit to you or youll go somewhere else…. You lean on your own understanding, you twist paul’s words to your own destruction, you refuse to listen to the church but refuse to be treated like a tax collector…. christ prayed that we all remain one and you guys spit on that prayer when you celebrate reformation day. Its really sick and self serving to put yourself in charge of the meaning of scripture.
Last thing…. If you want to do some further research, look at the Eliakim argument from isiah 22. King david had 12 ministers and only one (a prime minister) he gave the keys of the kingdom to. The steward…. He was given the keys of the kingdom, the ability to bind and loose. And yes it was a successive position!
For more on the Jewish background for this passage, I would recommend reading Isaiah chapter 22 verses 15 through 25. We see startlingly parallel wording when it comes to the installation of a royal Prime Minister in service to the dynasty of David’s family. And I say parallel specifically to the passage in Matthew 16.
I thought the same about the shaman and noticed something that I’m wondering if it’s significant. Right at the scene with the shaman, just before they cut away, an assistant hands the shaman his staff. Cut to Jesus who is walking with his staff, turns, and then hands it to Judas, who had previously been there. I’ve learned there’s little that’s done randomly in the show.
Wow!
👍
Interesting detail
I’ve always believed that the rock is revelation. Right before he names Peter he says that it’s not flesh that has made this known to you, but it is my father. I think it is the revelation.
Then why change Simons name to Rock? Why not just say "upon this truth/revelation/fact I will build my church"? But no church is built of facts, no matter how important the facts, they are made of people! And a group of people needs a leader, or its just a chaotic mob.
I think The Chosen addressed your concern for having Jesus and His disciples so up close and personal to 'the gates of hell' when 'Jesus' points out how just like The Baptizer His disciples should not be afraid to be in dark places, so they can be the light evrywhere they went
The Church is built on Him. Remember, He tells us to build our house on Him. He is the one we are to rely on for everything. I believe that Peter was the leader of the ministry. James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. The point I am trying to make is that of the apostles, many had special places of leadership. Jesus gives us all we need and puts us where He needs us (if we will be obedient). I like how Jesus always reminds us that we must do things on His timetable. Also something we need to remember. I love that we can discuss this.
Also loved the explanation of the explanation of the Mesiah and told the disciples but charged them to keep it silent. Another great scene by Dallas and writers. ❤❤❤
There he is! To be fair was on chosen app yesterday watching the rest of the extras I either missed or it got too late for.
But now the Snipe to break it down even more!
See, this is what I keep telling Peters who claim to be Rocks - Nah mate - you are a stone - I am the ROCK!!! I am PetrA not Peter🤣
Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. It's the same word: (“you are kêphā’ and on this kêphā’”)
As a catholic I fully support Dallas interpretation. I knew this one was going to be spicy, as the series will go on, the different theologies will start to clash.
Funny that Dallas is not even catholic
However, Jesus gave the keys to Peter not to all of the apostles, and that was a mistake Dallas made
Same! I'm predicting the Last Supper will be the same. 😬 I wonder how much say Jonathan has as the actor since he's also Catholic.
Tbh, you can still interpret it in catholic way tho. Because that's what I did.
@@Pluvophil You know, I'm not so pleased with the way they went about this. I'm Catholic. Two things: 1. Petros and Petra mean exactly the same thing, the only reason they are distinct in Jesus' speach in Mt 16 is because Simon is a MAN. To call a MAN "Petra" which is FEMININE is incorrect. Jesus was making a PUN to convey His point: Peter HIMSELF (not only his confession, but he as a person) is THE ROCK, "and on THIS ROCK ("PETRA") I will found My Church" means that since the rock used as a foundation to a building was NECESSARILY in the feminine (because that's the original word for ROCK: PETRA - PIETRA in Italian), and Jesus was addressing SIMON as a MAN (ergo his whole person, not just his confession) that's why Jesus changes his name, because his whole person would be considered the rock and he happens to be a man, so the masculine version of rock - petra - would be PETROS (PIETRO in Italian) which is the modern name PETER. Just the fact that Simon's name is changed signifies that Jesus is referencing him as a person, not only his confession, otherwise why renaming him if Jesus was referencing only his confession but NOT the PERSON of Simon?? jimmyakin.com/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-5.html
2. I'm not totally happy with how Dallas chose to go about this, I'm actually quite disappointed. He's trying to walk the line and keep all denominations happy, but that's making no one really happy. Because if you notice in the scene, Jesus steps away from Simon and addresses the whole group when he says "to you I will give the keys of the Kingdom" which is CLEARLY incorrect, because in Scripture you clearly understand the keys being given to PETER, not to the whole group. It serves no purpose to conflate Mt16 and Mt18 together here, it creates more confusion than anything. But Dallas would not fully go the Catholic (true) route, otherwise the evangelicals would get bent out of shape like the gentleman in this video already is, as he is attempting to explain how he disagrees about Peter being the rock and believes the rock is actually his confession of faith (typical, unfounded, take which is really unbiblical I dare to say, because it is clear that Mt16 is referencing the PERSON of Simon and not just what he says - "my Father in Heaven revealed this to YOU!"). This may seem an exaggeration to some, but it's truly a big deal. I understand adding dialogue to explain things, because it's a show and you have artistic license to integrate plausible events that do not contradict Scripture. But the way they went about this CONTRADICTS Scripture, because that's not what Jesus words are clearly intending in Mt16 when He is addressing SIMON, and SIMON only. Come on. So now you have the Evangelicals getting bent out of shape although Dallas had Jesus basically give the keys to the whole group (as to have the story portrayed distance itself from the Catholic and correct understanding of Peter's role in Church), while at the same time still making it look a "bit" Catholic in that Simon IS the ROCK and not his confession only (ergo, Andrew going next to him and reiterating "The ROCK" to Simon's ear). This pleases NO ONE. It's a FAIL, I'm sorry to say. They want to steer clear of John 6 for the Bread of Life discourse because of how controversial it is among denominations? Fine. But do not go against Scripture, please! That's truly an abomination!
Please note that it is never my intention to offend. Respectfully, Peter was never the first pope nor was given the keys nor was declared the rock for the church. None of the apostles were chosen on that capacity. The Bible is clear on that.
The Apostles Paul and Peter discussed that content in their letters.
The Rock the Christ was referring to was Himself. Christ not Peter is the Rock (head of the church). See I Peter 2:4-8
Our Lord alone is the one with the keys to death. Christ Himself stated that in the book of Revelation.
When Christ stated “on this rock I will build My church”, He was referring to this declaration Peter made when said Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Jehovah Himself.
I think we can all agree that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. The ETERNAL, SELF-EXISTENT, UNCREATED ONE. The Source and Sustainer of all. To Whom our reverence and worship is owed. A purpose and privilege NEVER granted to any created being.
I understand that there might theological clashes. And it never my intention to author disputes. I thought it appropriate to set things straight. I am only interested on what the bible has to say, unabridged and unaltered.
I think for the sake of our souls we would profit plenty if we adhere to the bible as it is and to put away man made traditions that contradicts scripture.
Chief among them, Peter as the first pontiff.
@lukewilliams448 I thought this as well, but at the same time noticed how Peter is clearly the leader of the group from this moment forward in the show. All of the other Apostles make a clear point of acknowledging that Peter has this special role among the group, so maybe Jesus looking around while giving his proclamation was simply to "make sure everyone is paying attention"...or maybe he's trying to toe the line.
There's a very bad "out of context" line coming up in the final episode that is truly inexcusable.
For those wondering, this has been contested for two thousand years and is not this simply broken down. We need to be more charitable with eachother, we have a common enemy.
Thank you for adding to my understanding of Matthew 16:18. Regardless of how someone interprets “petra”and “petros”, this verse shows just how powerfully complex the Word of God really is.
Judas is like a petulant child. This will be the catalyst for his turning away and living for his own selfish desires. Luke does a great job of portraying his conflicted thoughts.
I'm sure that Peter's forgiveness of Matthew was him being the rock, the first deciple of Jesus to start to get it, the mind set of being a follower of Christ.
I miss Yoshi as Philip but in this new Phillips defense he hasn’t had much of a chance so we will see ❤
Great video. Please continue to speak about the music it is such an important part.
Because of Peter's statement of faith, when he later denies knowing Jesus, many Jews today believe that he is the betrayer. Judas was simply misguided in his own faith about what he expected the Messiah to be and do. But Peter knew and loved Jesus and then denied Him. Major betrayal.
Peter repented after that and still followed Jesus in the end.
I much, much, more prefer the original Philip- Yoshi Barrigas! The *new Philip is so monotonous with little to no emotion, to me, kind of bland…
I agree, just can’t see anyone else playing him.
If the actor, the role had been more involved with Andrew in mourning John's death it would have helped. His role has been smaller so far and less connected.
"Death has no power..." Thank You, Jesus!. "Because I live, you also will live" HALLELUJAH! What great writing foreshadowing what we've seen in the trailers of Jesus overcoming death on Lazarus' behalf!!!
Jesus/Yeshua saying He will build His church on “this rock” takes me back to the vision of the statue in Daniel 2 where “a stone not cut by human hands” strikes the statue on the feet and destroys the statue of the empires, and then the rock turns into a mountain and covers the whole world.
And that wasn't a single man....
Thank these videos are great
🎉❤
Also, its interesting to note that 4 verses after calling him Peter, Jesus called him Satan for trying to rebuke Him after revealing the sufferings He must go through in the future.
In reality, Peter and John are the opposites. Peter boasting his love for Jesus, while John boasting of Jesus' love for him. This is very important in Christian living and a truth I might never see in The Chosen.
I missed your livestream last night. Thank you so much for explaining the Peter/Rock thing! It makes more sense to me, now. ❤️
Regarding Jesus not being the church ... we are told He is the head of the body ... which is the Church. ??
The gospels are clear that Jesus renamed Simon "Rock" and upon this rock, I will be my church. Everything you are saying is assumption. The truth is that the church Peter built in Rome became the center of Christianity and the Christian movement survived because of that. You are denying Christ's words, which are backed up by history. Jesus words about building his church on Peter is exactly what happened. To deny that is to deny what Jesus actually said and what actually happened.
Agreed
Agree
If you think Rome is the only reason Christianity survived, you’re very mistaken.
@@TheChosenSleuth According to you?
@@TheChosenSleuth facts
Elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus Christ is also referred to as the cornerstone or "capstone which the builders rejected" and the "foundation".
Yeah we talked about this a bit later in the stream. Obviously everything comes from Jesus as I mention here. But all of these are metaphors, not literal things. We don’t have LITERAL keys to heaven, we have access to it. Jesus isn’t literally a cornerstone or a foundation. These are metaphors and different metaphors than the one we’re talking about here. Just my thought though 😬.
@@TheChosenSleuth But Jesus is the foundation.... without Him we are sinking sand. The church had to have a solid foundation to begin..... which is Jesus. Again, without that, we have nothing to build upon.
Peter was chosen to be the one to start the church.
OMG....Do you see what you're saying???
Jesus started His Church, then sent The Holy Spirit....to guide them in all ways.
What you said, negates everything Jesus said...and Died for.
Unbelievable
@@lauriekurad💯
@@pandorasrevelations9873 ..,.. These comments....
My mind has been officially boggled 😵💫
@@crystalhaynes-sr5xw .... Please ask yourself... What is a Church ?
Then .. Why is there a Church ?
Where is the Church?
How did a Church get where it is?
Why ?
Who Built it where it is ?
Who is He ?
Where is He from ?
Who said ?
How do they know ?
Have you met Him ?
When, How, Where... ?
What's He like ?
Where is He from?
Where does He live ?
What does He do for a living ?
Does He have family around here ?
Do you know anything about them ?
Where is He now ?
What is He doing there ?
Why ?
Is He coming back ?
When ?
What happens to His Church until then ?
Who does He have, in His place, to encourage, and help His Church, the same way He has, and who knows what needs to be taken care of, and is there for them 24/7, because of Love, and nothing else ?
WHO ???
Then, what happens ?
Good GOD !!! How do you know all of this ???
!!
What do 'you' think about all of this ?
Maybe I need to check out this whole Church thing 🤔
@@lauriekurad Jesus started His Church through Peter. He said, "Upon this rock, I will build my Church." while addressing Peter. It is clear in the bible. Jesus gave Peter a mission and he followed it. He's not perfect but he always followed Jesus. You are so pressed about Peter. Please ask yourself too and ask the Holy Spirit's guidance for knowledge, wisdom, understanding, humility, and peace. Please don't negatively take this.
although written in greek they spoke Aramaic. Only one one word for rock.
Amazing you didn’t pull a muscle with this stretch
rofl
I absolutely agree that they would not have been right up close and personal at those pagan, demonic temples. But, I'm "used to different" with The Chosen 😂
I disagree I think Jesus would go anywhere to confront evil.
@faye I don’t think that’s true in his human form, for example he wouldn’t go into a brothel or eat pork at a dinner party. These things would have been way out of order for any Jew. But who knows 🤷♂️
I agree that they most likely were not that close, especially if women followers were with the group.
I'm certainly not a theologian but I like to listen to different opinions about the gospels. I'd like to know what you think of Brant Pitre's talk "The Jewish Roots of the Papacy" given 5 years ago but easy to find on RUclips. Stick with it to the end, very interesting.
To understand Peter's role, it's important to understand that the role of the Pope now, is not the way that role was early on. So if you say that Peter didn't hold the role as the Papacy is understood in modern times, you're correct. However, it's not that simple.
Peter is not being set up over and above the other apostles but as a leader and protector, someone who keeps the group together and on the right path. In Eastern Orthodoxy this is called the Ecumenical Patriarch. He is first among equals. Jesus said "Whoever is first among you, let him be your servant." It's not a position of power and prestige that others don't have, it's a responsibility that Peter has to all of them from this point, and especially following the ascension and Pentecost. All the of the Apostles will recieve the priesthood, and the authority to preach and act on God's authority, to bind and loose, heal, ect, just like we saw in Season 3 and as they go out into the world and bring many people in and set up local congregations, they will maintain a relationship with these early Christian communities as a guiding authority for them. We see this in the New Testament, but who keeps all of them straight? Initially, it's Peter.
All of the believers receive the priesthood
Peter is the Rock. Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic and the word in Aramaic (Kephas) is the same word used both times in that statement and… Peter is also called Cephas in the Bible.
Hallelujah- YES!! That ROCK KNOWLEDGE CONFESSION THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD!! ❤
Thank you Brandon, you have explained this perfectly, that’s exactly what Jesus meant when he said those words. xx🙏
Who died and made Brandon the correct interpreter of scriptures? Why do you believe him over some other person? I suspect it's because his interpretation jibes with yours ... so you're apt to believe him. But that doesn't make him right. In fact, he's not.
Something else I noticed about Judas. His eyes look very sunken and dark, he looks haggard. I’m thinking it’s intentional, but not sure the significance.
Yes! I noticed that too. I believe it's to make him look darker and deeper in his sin.
Why do protestants continue to make what Jesus said to Peter confusing by trying to make sense of the Greek translation of Rock. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Rock is Kephas (Cephas) where there is no confusion about what Jesus said and meant to Peter. Jesus made Peter the foundation of his Church. Jesus is the Head, the cornerstone, of his Church. If the Bible is read in proper context, Peter was the head of the apostles in virtually every situation. Jesus meant for Peter to lead his Church. This whole problem of trying to find a proper translation of Aramaic to Greek introduces the Petros/Petra confusion of what was meant. The Aramaic word for Rock, Kephas/Cephas, does not have male-female sense of the words which introduces the problems with large vs. small rock, Petros vs. Petra. Using the Aramaic eliminates the problems with the translation of Aramaic to Greek. Peter was the Rock and Jesus meant him to be the prime minister of his Church on earth.
This is where your authentication and knowledge on this interpretation....author... or channel owner...is needed...
Peter received the personal revelation from the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ. That's the Petra.
I think the rock was his faith not him as a man.
So you're saying Jesus is talking about the Petra of the gates of hell
"No he's not". in the Thumbnail lol Another ploy to steer people away from the fact that when Jesus mentioned the "Rock" he was in fact referring to Peter. Nice try. Didn't work though
peter is the foundation 0f the church because the holy spirit will rule that church as is related in the church council in acts of the apostles.
it says that "such is our decision and the decision of the holy spirit" for the 1st time the outcome of spiritual growth and church governance will not depend on a man but on a man filled with the holy spirit and the church as we see in acts is also directly governed by the holy spirit.
Also like the lesson of how John the Baptizer was faithful. Powerful lesson when you think about modern culture. The lesson is, no matter what is going on around you….its what’s in you (aka faith) that guides your actions
Isn't Jesus the cornetstone of Church. His teachering are the foundation of the His Church.
If Jesus meant that the rock on which the church would be built was Peter, the other apostles didn’t come away with that understanding because they soon after are arguing about who is the greatest among them. That is telling. In Ephesians chapter 2:19-20, Paul says God’s people are members of his household “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Here, all of the apostles are foundation stones but Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Certainly Peter was the lead apostle in many ways, but to say the entire church, the Body of Christ, was built upon him says too much.
Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock) because of his confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus is making a contrast between the foundation rock on which the gates of Hell was built upon, which was Mt. Hermon and the foundation rock on which the church would be built, which is the confession that Jesus is the Christ of the Living God.
Well the disciples didn't fully understand a lot of things.
@@chelseabradham3889 That’s true they didn’t understand cryptic messages such as parables which needed to be explained to them or when Jesus spoke of his death and resurrection which they had no reference for and were not expecting a dying and rising messiah. When did they get an explanation for the meaning of rock like they did with the other misunderstandings? Those who view Peter as the foundation rock which the church was built upon think Jesus was speaking very clearly about this. If it was that clear, why didn’t the apostles get it? They could follow other seemingly clear teachings but not this one. Besides, the sentence structure is awkward for Peter being the rock on which the church would be built. Jesus could have said “You are Peter and upon *you* I will build my church”, instead of “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”.
It's due to Dallas choosing to appease a group for reasons I won't say here.
But, it is different in Scripture, then what Dallas wrote for his script.
@@lauriekurad I just looked up the passage and it's pretty much as written. What or who was Dallas trying to appease?
I think you nailed that exactly right! Well done!
Could be Jesus renamed Simon as soon as he met him because one of his brothers was named Simon. However, there were two James ' so now we have lots of confusion!
I completely agree with your interpretation of the Rock in fact I wrote an article about this months ago that says it in the same way you did
The Greek and the Aramaic is so clear in this passage though. "You are kepa and on this kepa I will build my Church."
The Greek:
κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι Ἅιδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.
"I also tell you that you are Petros, and on this same petra I will build my Church."
Taute means "this", "the same" or "this same." Taute is word that points to the noun in the earlier clause that being "rock." The whole exchange is Jesus talking about Peter and revealing who he is and what he will become.
Some people have tried to disparage the "Catholic" aka the most natural reading of the passage by saying that Petros and Petra are different words. However, it could just as well be synthetic parallelism, where the second idea builds on the first.“You may appear to be a small stone, but on the big rock you really are..." Jesus makes a revelation about Peter but Jesus does not then without warning change the subject he is talking about. There is no indication or warning that Jesus is talking about Peter's confession or talking about Himself as the rock. Jesus is talking about Peter the whole time whether you like that or not.
I am pretty sure Jesus and the disciples did actually go to the gates of hell because that was where Jesus said on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail, thereby reclaiming the land that Satan held as his own, setting the stage for Satans destruction. DR, Micheal Heiser does a great seminar on this very subject,
People do realize there was an actual rock rising out of the pool with a statue of mithra sitting on it at the time, the romans built an aqueduct to keep the rock above water.
Soorry, it was pan
Language interruption 2000 + yrs later is a mystery.especially from ayrimtrk to english
Hope we get to meet the young John Mark. He should have been a young teenager by this time. Younger than John.
Folks, please do not confuse the chosen show with scripture. It is a wonderful show that brings alive the times of the Bible, but it does have scriptural errors at times. Read your own Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand and go back into the original languages. It’s very easy nowadays with Electronic apps that you can get that have the original languages. They are called interlinear Bibles. Yeshua Jesus is the rock. He is the cornerstone
Brandon, good post and I understand what your thought process is. My question is why you don't take a deeper dive into Matthew 16:19. In this Jesus says "YOU" multiple times to Peter about the keys to heaven and what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Why can't it be both- the confession of the statement that Jesus is the Christ and Jesus affirming that Peter be a leader of the church, which Peter was, there is no denying that, regardless of whatever denomination you are.
He is A leader, though he’s not THE leader or the thing it’s built upon.
@@TheChosenSleuth Even in the rest of the season, they portray Peter is THE leader among the Apostles.
You may not know this, but the Kingdom of David had an officer called the "al bayith" who was the "over the house" or the chief steward of the king's affairs. He had binding authority, and his office was signified by the clothing he wore and the keys that he carried. In Isaiah 22, the Lord speaks of how he will remove the current al bayith (Shebna) and install a new one (Eliakim). The office persists even when the current holder departs. Jesus, the new Davidic King, gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom" and gives him binding authority. He is establishing a new "al bayith" for the Kingdom of Heaven, which is what Peter is. He is given an office, which persists even after he dies.
Watch this video for a further explanation: ruclips.net/video/PWkmMNvr_to/видео.htmlsi=5ItQXapQMdmHSoSy
Sorry, but Jesus sent The Holy Spirit to Oversee His Church. Not Peter.
There are many instances when GOD was addressed as The Rock.
"The Rock of my salvation"
Peter was not the salvation.
Peter was not GOD.
@@lauriekurad None of us are saying that Peter is God. None of us are saying that Peter is salvation.
We are simply repeating what Jesus said: Simon is Peter. And the name Peter means rock. It would be incredibly strange for Jesus to change Simon's name to "Rock" and then refer to a completely different "Rock" on which he is building his Church.
The Kingdom of David had officers and a clear king. Jesus, the Son of David, has officers in his Kingdom. He is clearly the King, but he provides officers for his Kingdom on earth (aka the Church). When Jesus says that he is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom, he is making a reference to an office that was held in the Kingdom of David: the "al bayith" or the "over the house", the chief steward who was charged with handling the king's day-to-day affairs, which including making binding decisions. As has been mentioned several times, an example of this can be found in Isaiah 22.
What else would it mean for Jesus to give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter? What else would it mean for Jesus to tell Peter that Peter's binding and loosing of anything on earth will also be bound and loosed in Heaven?
Peter is Petro! Jesus is Petra. DIFFERENT.
Thank you so much for your going through the scenes with everyone! ♥️🙏
As Nick Vujicic says - "I'm standing at the gates of hell redirecting traffic!" The Church redirects traffic to Jesus and our True & Living God. Jesus did *not* make Simon Peter infallible (and neither is the Pope!)
Protestant scholar D.A. Carson notes:
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “[small] stone” and “[large] rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kêphā’ was used in both clauses (“you are kêphā’ and on this kêphā’”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Matt. 16:18).
He further notes: “Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun-and that is just the point!” (ibid.).
Although Jesus’ words could have been translated into Greek using petros in both cases (“You are petros and on this petros”), petra may appear in the second instance simply to avoid using the same word too closely in quick succession. Avoiding repetition by using a synonym is often an important element of style (so much so that it is the reason pronouns exist).
Even if we were to grant that petros and petra referred to small and large stones respectively, this would not show Peter isn’t the rock. That interpretation assumes antithetic parallelism, where the two are contrasted (“You are a small stone, but on this other big rock . . . ”). However, it could just as well be synthetic parallelism, where the second idea builds on the first (“You may appear to be a small stone, but on the big rock you really are . . . ”).
There were no backpacks in 33AD😂
Were you there? How did they carry their items?
It is a shame that we did not get the Bread of Life discourse, but along with Peter being the foundational Rock, this might have been too much for Protastants to digest…
I always perceived what Jesus said about the rock is that it’s Peter’s faith. And on His people’s faith He will build His church…. 🤷♀️
But in keeping with the pebble vs mountain face…. Each believer is a stone to build the church but the faith in Jesus is the foundation stone.
So what about the passage makes you think the demonstrative pronoun "this" (used in "this rock") refers to Peter's profession of faith rather than in Peter himself? In verses 17, 18, and 19 ... Christ begins each verse talking about Peter (17: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah ...", 18: "And so I say to you ...", 19: "I will give you ...". Christ is referring to Peter, over, and over, and over. And just ask yourself this. Why, oh why, would Christ have gone with the new name Kefa and then referred to the kefa, as a cornerstone? What would be the point of that word play if he meant the 2nd kefa to refer to the profession of faith? Using the same word twice makes it clear that Peter is that rock.
Yes I think we've all been there. After all we live in this evil earth!
About what Jesus says on Matthew 16:18, He is not talking about Peter (Simon) here. The Rock, Jesus talking about is the one Peter (Simon) has said in the previous verse Matt 16:16 “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” this is the one of the foundation of the Church that we stand on this Rock, on this Truth!, that we believe and follow Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This is the Rock we stand on! this is the Truth! Jesus is our Cornerstone, and the Living Stone. (Ephesians 2:19-22 & 1 Peter 2:4-9)
I agree that the "rock" which the church is built upon is revelation from God the father via the holy ghost. This is how Simon Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, the son of God the father.
Ciaphis is an amazing actor. He is so good he’s scary!!!!! Absolutely my favorite episode! So much going on!
Explain personal revelation because Jesus clearly affirmed that Simon now Peter received personal revelation. It was not completely personal faith on Peter’s part it was on personal revelation received by Peter Therefore Jesus is talking about building the church on personal revelation
Personal Revelation means that GOD put the thought in Peter's head, like GOD does with all of us, all the time, and Peter did not come up with that statement on his own.
The Holy Spirit can be with us, reminding us and guiding us, in all things.
Most just don't listen.
I hope this' helps.
GOD Bless🌹
No issue. Makes sense. Makes sense from scripture.
Peter also gave the very first sermon at Pentecost which started the church.
We are now living in a time where we cannot go by what other people tell us what is in the Bible. We need to be reading the Bible To discern for ourselves. I do have a love and hate relationship with this show. There are so many parts of the show that are amazing but then there are parts that are so unbiblical. In Matthew 15:16 Peter confessed that Jesus is Christ. The rock is that He is the Christ. If you read in verse 22 Peter starts rebuking Christ and Jesus in turn rebuked him. Peter was a very Flawed person just like every other person in the Bible except for one. Christ is The Rock. We need to realize that this is just a secular show about Jesus and not entirely biblically accurate. We need to be reading the Bible ourselves. Reading the Word is a life changer! ❤❤
I'm truly thinking of not watching any longer.
Dallas is more concerned about pleasing a certain group of people, than he is about portraying Biblically.
Regardless of the way he portrayed the interaction between Simon and Jesus ...
The other disciples never acted the way Dallas portrays them.
They, according to The Bible...never said a word about it, and Simon was never portrayed as im charge of anything .
It is one thing to fool with the Characters, but another to change Biblical Doctrine.
I always thought he was talking about himself as he is referred to as the Chief Cornerstone. But it makes sense with Petra being a huge piece of stone like a mountain. The idea of it being faith is interesting. I will be looking into that more for sure.
When Matthew realized the "much worse" that Little James mentioned, I wonder if people would have less questions if a depiction of pan was shown as he looked up/off in the distance.
Not explaining it outright in dialogue, like you did by asking those pertinent questions, leaves the door of exploration open. If someone really wants to know they will search for the answers and find what you explained so well and more about the goats at Cesarea Phillipi
No. Read 1Peter 2:4-8 , Acts 4:10,11 , Romans 9:31-33, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and Ephesians 2:20.
Jesús found his church on Petra not Peter which is the affirmation that Simon said you are the Christ the Son of the living God”
Peter in Hebrew is Cephas. It means Rock. It is very similar to the name Caiaphas which shares the same Hebrew root meaning rock. Jesus was literally making Peter His first High Priest.
Christ is saying that He will build His church (the gathering of those who repent and come to Him) upon this rock. The rock is revelation from God to you, personally, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The difference between what I am saying and The Chosen Sleuth's explanation is actual KNOWLEDGE, vs merely believing.
God gave this knowledge to Peter, and God can give this knowledge to YOU.
Notice that when Jesus "I will give you keys to the kingdom of heaven", he was speaking to ALL the disciples, not just Peter.
As a further witness, Jesus said again to His disciples:
Matt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Sometimes, protestants just don't wanna see the full picture.
🧐👀😬
@@TheChosenSleuthDid Jesus want 4300 different religions? Every one of these have their own interpretations and if they don’t agree, they start a new church. THAT’S why Peter is the foundation. You have to have authority or you can interpret whatever you want like you did.
@@cgaccas if 11 apostles were morons...need peter for understanding. What is the Holy spirit then???😂😂😂
@@cgacc Protestants also believe in one church
Thank you you’re the first person I ve heard that agreed with me. That’s how I understood it. On this revelation I AM THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
I really like your showing scripture right up front, so that people can see that the scene is based in scripture!