Peter an Apostle of Jesus, not a replacement:

A Historical and Scriptural investigation explaining how Peter is not the rock intimated by Matthew 6:17-19, nor is he be the first bishop of Rome; and that the Old Syriac texts used to substantiate said conjectures derive their personhood from the Pishetta, which supports Jesus the Messiah as the only Rock and foundation of the New Testament Scriptures.

Yahweh of War Ministries

CONTENTS

Peter, an apostle of Jesus not his replacement .................................................................................................................... 2 Death of Peter and Paul in the city of Rome ....................................................................................................................... 3 On church Government in the 1st Century: Evidence against early Catholicism ................................................................ 6 Further explanation on the lack of Supremacy of a single Bishop in the second century................................................... 7 Errancy of tradition and the imperfect reliance upon the unfaithfully named church fathers ......................................... 9 The Peshitta as source text for the Old syriac and not vice versa ..................................................................................... 12 Peshittas explanation of rock ........................................................................................................................................... 17 True meaning of upon this rock I will build my church ................................................................................................... 17 Final Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 20

Peter, an apostle of Jesus not his replacement

It is important to understand that the specially ordained apostles who founded the churches of the first century were those from whom such churches gained their credence and possibility. We know as direct fact from the Holy Scriptures that Paul was the single apostle directly sent to the gentiles (Rom 11:13, Gal 2:7-9), and that he was the only one sent to found the Judeo-Christian church in the city of Rome; we also know that this church contained both Jewish and gentile converts just like the many other none Israel based assemblies (Rom 7:1): therefore the Roman church was not entirely gentile. This is significant because Pauls mantle (if it were passable, dealing in hypotheticals also disregarding the passing of Elijahs mantle to Elisha) would have been given to the many keepers of those many churches in which he founded, and no single assembly would have been able to lay claim to his singular power and or authority, such would be accurate because his authority was distinctly derived from the direct meeting with the Messiah Himself, and Paul of his own power could not grant his authority, place or call to any other especially if they had not fulfilled the criterion of being an actual Apostle; that is if they were not directly ordained from Jesus Himself (Acts 26:16, 1cor 9:1 &c). The names of the other apostles remained on the ecclesias they consecutively founded, and discipleship was passed onto elders who were much later titled bishops, after the image of the church in Jerusalem, and this action of consecrating an elder did not actuate a literal passing on of the power of powerful miracles, nor did it necessitate a new generation of apostles that would continue to usher in the creation of the New Testament Gospels. Scripture testifies to Saint Paul as the founder of the Judaeo-Christian church at Rome, so preponderant assertions about Peter passing on his (assumptive) mantle to one church or bishop, one not possibly nor remotely founded by him nor ordained (due to his duty of founding ecclesias chiefly in the realm of the circumcision only (Gal 2:7)), is a dream without reward nor warranty. More realistically, if such a passing on of place and authority had existed then Paul would have passed on his mantle to the Elder/bishop of Rome not Peter, for this church was under his protection and care. Even with such a possibility existing, the passing of power from one Apostle to another would not be designated as factual in the scriptures, and we would have to rely upon fancy and even worse exaggerated supposition founded on grossly exaggerated exegesis in order to craft and maintain this unnecessary tale: for without the Word of Yahweh designating and backing it, nothing is bound or loosed on earth or in heaven. Evidence that the Apostles were one of a kind and after their death such an apostolic dispensation was ended is seen in their twelve names existing as 12 foundations in New Jerusalem (Rev 21:13), all other saints if they are true saints as displayed by their actions and love and patience for all the brethren (1john 4:7-8 1pet 3:8-9) and through remaining in sound doctrine (1john 2:4, Titus 1:9), will have their place in the house of Yahweh but will not be named as ascribed foundations.
2

Death of Peter and Paul in the city of Rome

Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, tome i. p. 564, &c.; and Baratier, De Successione Romanor Pontif cap. v p.60. All agree that both these apostles, Paul and Peter, were put to death in the reign of Nero ; but in respect to the year and the place, there is controversy. Many question whether both suffered at the same time. They believe, according to the testimony of Prudentius ( Peristephan. Hym. xii. De passione beat. Apost. Petri et Pauli, ver. 5), that Peter suffered one year earlier then Paul, but on the same day. To the day on which Paul suffered, some make it the 29th of June, and others the 23rd of February. The year is by some determined to A.D. 64 ; so Von Henchen, Acta Sanctor. (May) ; Pagi, ritica in Annul. Baron. tom. i. pages 51, 52. ; - by others A.D. 65, and again by others A.D. 68 ... That Paul was beheaded during Nero's persecution, is supported by the testimony of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. p. 1375, ed. Bunemann. (Mosheim's institutes of ecclesiastical. footnote pg 26)

Based on the above sources and assuming they are without the so commonly encountered flagrant faults of so many extra biblical ecclesiastical writings, or even worse, simply forgeries and fakes, we have the dates of the deaths of these two Apostles which are from A.D. 64-68; this information is significant because we can now determine when this perceived continuation of apostolic succession was said to have occurred, unless it was to happen before the apostles death, which is highly speculative and very much unlikely. The beginning of apostolic succession must begin before 69 A.D. But we have many problems with the reality of such a conjectural empowering. 1. No bishop in the first century had power over all other ecclesias, not even Peter and Paul dominated their churches, nor acted through any sort of force or malice apart from recommendations given through the inspired word of Jesus Himself, this is unless they shared words stated to be from or of their own minds but in the spirit, having such words always confessed to be of a uniquely human origin ie, I speak as a man. 2. Their deaths occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem, and it is properly understood that the ecclesiastical headquarters of the many churches was located at Jerusalem, (the idea of this headquarters being the head of a universal church is not definitively substantiated during the first century. Similar realities only began to show their faces in the late second century after much diligent Grecian influence and humanistic manipulations of the church-governmental policies) 3. The Apostle John was alive and thriving at the time of Peter and Pauls death so instantaneously all ecclesiastical authority and power would have fallen directly to him naturally, making John the guide of the church militant as one of the only survivors of those who saw and touched Jesus the Messiah. Further concrete evidence of this position of "singular definitive leadership" if such a thing even ever was, is seen by his late written epistles warning against corrupt church governments and membership, as well as warning against the anti-Christ which now doth worketh (1john 1:9-10), and more
3

importantly the unique and holy reception of the book of Revelations that descended from Jesus the Messiah Himself who was in Heaven; that same Jesus who was and is the living Leader of the Ecclesia universalise. 4. If Peter was to lay hands upon the bishop of Rome such a bishop could not attain spiritual authority or a leadership position over any other bishop in his time. This would be because the roman bishop would have to remain subject to St. John until his decease, and after the death of St. John the bishop of Jerusalem would naturally become empowered, for he remained head bishop even after the destruction of 70 A.D, and also because the position of bishop first originated at Jerusalem; the Brother of Jesus being the first, showing his headship over even that of the apostle Peter, if such definitive leadership existed. This is to say, the leading of the Universal church would have to descend from the Jerusalem church or from Johns own articulated decrees empowered by the Spirit of Messiah. Since the Bishop of Rome after 68 A.D. remained as normal a bishop as were all others in the east and west consecutively, this shows that the rapacious (greedy) fallacy of apostolic succession is exactly that, not much more than a mans heretical anti-scriptural teaching in order to grab power for possible lucrative gains, or even future sovereignty (all actions which the living Jesus the living God condemns (Matt 13:9-12, Tit 1:7, 1Pet 5:2, &c). 5. The bishop of Rome did not gain substantial influence or power enough to enforce his pagonic rudiments and traditions until well after the third century; this is seen by Victor 1s lack of success in the Quarterdecimon controversy, and the similar failings of lesser bishops before him. During this controversy, the churches of the west did agree with Victor 1 on many points of tradition, but we see that Victor and his desire to adopt the festival of Ishtar in order to create a independent non Jewish church (this action being warned against by Paul and told to be wrong to do (Rom 11:17-18 and 19-26) was his proposed request. Victors actions were also advised to be unwise by the Bishop of Lyons who never the less agreed with him about the (tradition based) changing of the day on which Passover fell, but was wise enough to know not to cause division among brothers which God hates (Pro 6:16-19). The rejection of his decree to the Ecclesias in the East who kept faithful to the original ways showing their pre-eminence and faithfulness to the truth of Jesus the Messiah, Peter, Paul and John who were all faithful and obedient servants of the truth (who also all kept the 14th day of Nisan for Passover) shows that they in the East had the power and authority and freedom to choose in the time of Victor. Such actions just once again substantiates that power existed in the eastern churches and was not settled directly in the seat of Rome, thus no true apostolic succession existed then or today.

It wasnt until the second century that churches amalgamated and desired to become one "universal" entity, but this amalgamation was created presumptuously after the governmental suggestions of the Greeks, not by the words of the Messiah, but by men for the sakes of expediency. The first hundred years after Jesus the Messiahs return to His throne displayed a near perfect example of what the world wide church should have resembled, and does remain a great example of the faithful churches existent today wherever they are. The desire to make a
4

universal kingdom with one human leader is, was, and will always be the dream of the tower of Babel builders, and those tyrannical anti-Christian rulers who followed the greedy dreams of worldwide domination (apart from the universal rulership of the Father and the Lamb)..

The actions of Victor the first shows that he had a tyrannical hunger to lord over the flocks of God, but could and did not. Its possible that his actions were for the purposes of becoming empowered by the Roman government and or to become royalty in a co-united pagan/christen empire. Victor 1, being an apostate had no power to title the faithful followers of Yahweh as heretics, since his actions were shown to this day to be antiChristian and his spirit shown to this day to break the rules of 1st john, which is love for brothers, and also the correct conduct of a bishop as seen in Titus 1:9 this shows that the word of Yahweh Itself condemns him as an actual and true apostate, and such a condemnation has come from the very mouth of Jesus the Messiah Himself, who reigns over all in the heavens forever. This judgment remains true unless Victor repented, which it is evinced that he most likely did not, thus this shows that the Roman system and all subsequent bishops who followed after Victors errors without correcting them have been and are rooted in a heretical foundation of pagan sand, and are by all scriptural definitions an antichrist system, and have been so from very early on.

Three Proof texts that Victor and his followers are scripturally apostates:

1Pe 5:1-4 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: (2) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (4) And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Gal 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

How should a bishop act?

Tit 1:7-9 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (8) But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; (9) Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Semi-conclusion

Victor failed in all these places, and any Bishop that holds onto Ishtar as Passover is guilty of the same curse to this day. The Bishops of Rome created their own Christianity and are accursed accord to the Words of Yahweh. This cannot be argued for it is fact.

On church Government in the 1st Century: Evidence against early Catholicism

11. In this manner Christians managed ecclesiastical affairs so long as their congregations were small or not very numerous. Three or four presbyters, men of gravity and holiness, placed over those little societies, could easily proceed with harmony, and needed no head or president. But when the churches became larger, and the number of presbyters and deacons, as well as the amount of duties to be performed, was increased, it became necessary that the council of presbyters should have a president, a man of distinguished gravity and prudence, who would distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and be, as it were, the central point of the whole society. He was at first denoted the angel (Rev. ch. 11. and iii.), but afterwards the bishop, a Greek title indicative of his principle business. It would seem that the Church of Jerusalem, when grown very numerous, after the dispersion of the aposltes among foreign nations, was the first to elect such a president, and that other churches in process of time followed the example.

12. But whoever supposes that the bishops of the first and golden age of the church corresponded with the bishops of the following centuries, must blend and confound characters which are very different. For, in this century and the next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might ordinarily be contained in a private house ; nor was he its lord, but was in reality its minister or servant ; he instructed the people, conducted all parts of public worship, and attended one the sick and the necessitous in person ; and what he was unable thus to perform, he committed to the care of the presbyters, but without power to determine or sanction anything except by the votes of the presbyters and people. The emoluments of this singularly laborious and perilous office were very small. For the churches had no revenues except the voluntary contribution of the people or the
6

oblations, which, moderate as they doubtless were, were divided among the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons, and the poor of the church. ...

14. All the Churches in those primitive times were independent bodies, none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the Churches which were founded by the apostles themselves frequently had the honour shown them to be consulted in difficulty and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respected on a footing of equality, nor does there appear in this first century any vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same province, which gave rise to councils and to

metropolitans. Rather, as is manifest, it was not till the second century that the custom of holding ecclesiastical councils began, first in Greece, and thence extended into other provinces. (Mosheims institiutes of ecclessiastical Chap. 2. Pg 35) As we have seen in the first century the churches were all nodes of independent bodies. Not even the church at Jerusalem claimed all authority or power over the others. Since John was still alive any such error claiming one church to have full power over all would have been quickly expunged. After the death of every true Apostle history instantaneously sees corruption in not only the proper ecclesiastical structure of the churches, but the actions of bishops and the ideas and historically proven falsehoods purported by them. Further explanation on the lack of Supremacy of a single Bishop in the second century.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the headquarters of the early Church, which was at Jerusalem, was no longer existent. From the prophetic utterances of Christ the Christians received warning, escaped from the doomed city, and found refuge at Pella, in the Jordan valley. But the great effect upon the church of this destruction was that it put an end forever to all relation between [rabbinic] Judaism and Christianity. Up to this time the church had been regarded by the Roman government and by the people at large as a BRANCH OF THE JEWISH RELIGION, but henceforth [rabbinic] Jews and Christians were apart. A small section of Jewish Christians endured for two centuries, but with ever-decreasing numbers (p.42-43). Decreased numbers shows that they were the faithful flock traveling on the narrow not wide path. This decrease yet non-destruction provides proof that hell could not swallow up the pure and undefiled church.

After the end of the war [that made them flee Jerusalem], the Church re-established itself in Jerusalem for a while. Says Hurlbut, "Simeon (or Simon, Mark 6:3), the successor of St. James as head or bishop of the

church in Jerusalem, ... [was] said to have attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was crucified by order of the Roman governor of Palestine in 107 A.D. during the reign of Trajan" (p.53).

The controversy flared up again toward the end of the second century. The two major protagonists of the controversy were Victor of Rome (A.D. 189-199) who championed the Easter-Sunday tradition, on one side, and Polycrates, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the bishop of Ephesus and representative of the Asian Churches, who strongly advocated the traditional Passover date of Nisan 14. Victor attempted to cut off whole churches of God, who observed the tradition of an ancient custom, the true Passover, says Eusebius.

According to Eusebius (ca. 260-340 A.D.), Polycrates, claiming to possess the genuine apostolic tradition transmitted to him by the apostles Philip and John, refused to be frightened into submission by Victor's threats.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon from about 176 A.D., tried to intervene as peacemaker in the controversy. He warned Pope Victor not to break the unity with the many bishops of Asia and the East, who WITH THE JEWS CELEBRATED THE PASSOVER on the fourteenth day of the new moon (NPNF, 2nd, III, p.370). In addition, Apollinarius, bishop of Hierapolis (ca. A.D. 170), declared: The 14th Nisan is the TRUE PASSOVER OF OUR LORD, the great Sacrifice; 63 instead of the lamb, we have the Lamb of God (Bacchiocchi, p.199, footnote).

The churches of Asia:

What we see from this first sign of inward corruption originating with the bishop of Rome is that the powers in his hands were thus: 1. To cut others off from his communion, 2. To send letters of excommunication to respective bishops asking them to do the same to non responding churches 3. To write to all other bishops asking them to follow his example. Therefore, his power did not show him as head of any church apart from his own, but what it has shown is that he was a greedy man who felt as though he was head of at least the churches in the west (due to Jerusalems renaming and occupation by the Romans and gentiles completely at this time). Victors power was in asking not telling, thus his power was no power at all; this once again shows that he was not the pontiff of the body of Christ and did not inherit sovereignty nor infallibility from Peter. Evidence that his actions were lust based and Anti-Christian:
Pro 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, Pro 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Victor one and uncountable other bishops of Rome are shown to be carnal fleshly individuals who adopted paganistic ideals that broke Gods commandments in order to get their own way, with the intent of making the entire church fall into apostasy. This Victor did not have the power or authority to do anything to anyone, and for any to say that he had the seat of Peter and or the power to reign and rule the entire body of Christ is amply fallacious. This bishop and his followers teamed up with the state of Rome, followed the way of the heathen, and co-persecuted all other faithful believers, yea, and they even became the same state by a friendly union with paganism and anti Christian practices thus becoming the powerful Roman catholic church. And even this title is a false one for this system is not universally renowned nor accepted, but is almost universally hated by all who know of its sickening eternal corruptions and wickednesss.

Errancy of tradition and the imperfect reliance upon the unfaithfully named church fathers

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The reliance upon primitive church records are untrustworthy because those who wished to rewrite history in their favour have had much time to work as they could. The amount of evidence showing the falsifications of so many of these pseudo church fathers works can only attest to the utter uselessness of taking their words as unmistakably factual. These men existed in a realm of bias, so to get a clear opinion on the state of things in these early times is not only difficult, but near literally impossible; that is if singularly relying on their corrupt testimonies. Even the Bible is justified by secular histories. So must these mens works be. If their words cannot be justified by outside evidences of at least two or three 9

witnesses who were unaffiliated with any regime especially the catholic then their words cannot be admitted as evidences towards any definitive realities.

10

Testing scripture by scripture is one chief rule of faith.

11

Further evidences of the errant truths of the unscripturally titled church fathers.

So the words of Justin Martyr are showed to be inaccurate. Thus relying on church fathers or Romanists to prove the definition of scriptural realities is unsupportable. Such evidences will not be admitted without two or three unbiased witnesses. Every church father can be shown to be the victims of such fraudulence and recondition.

The Peshitta as source text for the Old syriac and not vice versa

As we have seen previously in "Ruach Qadim" and "The Path to Life", the idea that the Peshitta was the work of Rabulla of Edessa has been thoroughly discredited by inscription evidence and modern scholarship. Furthermore, we have also seen that one of the Old Syriac manuscripts bears the unique name that Rabulla gave to his translation of the Gospels from Greek into Aramaic, evangelion de mepharreshe (separated Gospels) and that the other Old Syriac document appears to be a minor revision of the former. (Note regarding other evidences found in the coming text)

Finding the Hand of Revision

However, the biggest proofs against the Siniaticus are in fact textual in nature. For example, remembering a major proof at the beginning of this book speaks volumes on the question of who comes first. The Siniaticus version of Matthew 1:16 reads "her betrothed" instead of gowra in Matthew 1:16, which is clearly an effort to bring itself more in line with the majority Greek rendering of "her husband".
12

Now let us look at some other examples from these two traditions and see who was really revised from whom. Since the alleged revision is supposed to have been done to make the Peshitta more in line with the Imperial Byzantine Greek text, I will be contrasting both Peshitta and Siniaticus with that Greek family of manuscripts.12

"These things happened in Beth-Abara13 on the other side of the Jordan." John 1:28 (Byzantine Text and Siniaticus readings)

"These things happened in Beth-Anya on the other side of the Jordan." John 1:28 (Eastern Peshitta reading)

Beth-Anya is better known as Bethany, a city two miles outside of Jerusalem, and also known as the hometown of Y'shua's friend Lazarus (John 11:1). By contrast no city named Beth-Abara (place of the other side) has ever been found. Why is it then that the Peshitta preserves the name of a real city and the Siniaticus and Byzantine texts do not?

Simple, both of them misread the original!

Specifically, there were two stages to the confusion. First, on the Greek side, the redactor of the Byzantine text probably skipped over a couple of Aramaic words thusly:

"These things happened in Beth Anya on the Abara (other side) of the Jordan."

Then, with his work now completed, the Greek redactor would have simply put the Aramaic text aside and never gave the reading a second thought. Next, when his text passes to the Old Syriac Aramaic scribe, he simply transliterates into his language the phrase preserved in the Greek. Granted though, it is possible to suggest that the Aramaic scribe could have also skipped over "Anya on the" as well, but this idea is less likely, since an Aramaic speaker is less prone to error in his native language. Instead, the error the Old Syriac scribe makes is far subtler:

13

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached. Luke 24:47 (Byzantine Text and Siniaticus readings)

And that repentance for remission of sins should be preached. Luke 24:47 (Eastern Peshitta reading)

Some revision to agree with the Byzantine here! Again, who is showing redaction from whom? And did the Peshitta scribe, while doing his best to agree with Byzantine, just decide to get creative and add a phrase? Moving on, we see the same problem in Mark:

When evening had come, he would go outside the city. Mark 11:19 (Byzantine Text and Siniaticus readings)

14

When evening had come, they went outside the city. Mark 11:19 (Eastern Peshitta reading)

And:

And many things had suffered of many physicians Mark 5:26 (Byzantine Text and Siniaticus readings)

"Whom had suffered many things of many physicians Mark 5:26 (Eastern Peshitta reading)

This last reading in Mark is quite interesting, since there is no real reason for the "Peshitta revisers" to change the "original" text from a waw proclitic (and) to a dalet proclitic (whom), when the meaning is the same. Other deep differences between the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of this passage need to be shown with the actual Aramaic text14:

15

Therefore, if the Peshitta is supposed to be designed to agree with the Greek, it seems a very selective agreement indeed. In other places, agreement between the Peshitta and the most ancient Greek readings go against the Old Syriac manuscripts, since the latter obviously came on to the scene rather late, after the most reliable readings had been established.

The reader may then well ask how such a situation can be possible, whereby both agreement and disagreement with the Greek texts are taken as evidence of Peshitta Primacy. The answer is, quite honestly, that it depends on the case you are looking at. If we are, for example, studying Matthew 1:16-1915, that is a situation where an obvious mistranslation of the entire Greek record, Old Syriac, and the Hebrew versions of Matthew, arose from the only possible place for a correct and original reading, mainly the Peshitta text. Therefore, the consistent and early misreading in the Greek record serves as powerful proof that the only source it could have mistranslated from must be older than the earliest Greek documents, meaning prior to the second century.

On the other hand, if we have a very odd reading in either Old Syriac or the late medieval Hebrew Matthew manuscripts, and that odd variant cannot be explained by a mistranslation, picking the wrong reading from a multiple meaning Aramaic word, or confusing two Aramaic words that are spelled the same but have different meanings, then we need to shift gears. It is at that point that issues such as antiquity, multiple attestation of a reading and numbers of extant manuscripts must come into play. What is, after all, a grand total of five manuscripts with no concordance against 360 Peshitta manuscripts, complete codices from the fourth to ninth centuries, that are virtually identical?16 Furthermore, the variances between Peshitta and the Greek are easily explainable within the framework suggested above, as opposed to a totally bizarre reading from Old Syriac coming out of left field.

It is because of complexities like these that I am determined to offer as many comparative examples as possible, so that the reader may make up his or her mind based on the collectivity of the evidence. So much then for the basic lesson in comparing these traditions so far. Now let's move on to the advanced class.

(Ancient Evidence: A Fourth Century Witness to the Antiquity and Originality of the Peshitta Text (Supplemented with
Additional Proofs from "Ruach Qadim") By Andrew Gabriel Roth pp. 21-25)

16

Peshittas explanation of rock

Since the Peshitta is the source text for the Sinaticus and the other Old Syriac text, the above shows that the word rock can be taken in a multitude of ways. To be sure of the meaning of Petros/Chephas/Keepa/Peter in the coming scripture is difficult without a clear understanding of the rest of the Old testament.

True meaning of upon this rock I will build my church

Mat 16:13-18 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? (14) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (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. (18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We must realize that the revelation of Jesus being the Son of the most high Yahweh was not a new revelation, for in chapter 14 of the same epistle of Matthew just after Jesus walked on the sea, the Apostles admitted that Of a truth thou art the Son of God. (Mat 14:33) With this acknowledged, when Peter said the same thing out loud he wasnt revealing some new revelation. What peter did was combine Yahshuas Sonship with the fact that he was the promised Messiah Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God (kjv).

The Hebraism
17

In order to understand the full meaning of this passage we must look at what the name Simon means. In the Hebrew Simon means hearing.

H8095 shimn shim-one' From H8085; hearing; Shimon

The fact that Peter was a sir name and was not his proper name as we even see by his second Epistle beginning with Simon Peter..., the use of the full name Simon Barjon, or hearing son of Jona is used with a specific intent. Lets look at this scripture with its intended language:

Blessed art thou, hearing son of jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

So the fact that his name means hearing is evidence that God the Father spoke to him and revealed such truth to his understanding. Jesus the Messiah then continues His Hebraism:

(18) And I say also unto thee, that thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is a play on names, and each name has a purpose in regards to the revelation or knowledge of the Messiah being the Son of God. Lets look at the parts:

1. Simon means hearing 2. Peter means stone, or rock or boulder and he was the one who heard the Father reveal the Messiahs full identity. Like Peters name, this revelation being the Rock but of a different kind then what Peter stands for was the foundation of all faith and even the church itself.

Further explanation: Blessed art thou, hearing ... for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee ... And I say also unto thee, That thou are stone (cephas), and upon this rock (cephas) I will build my church.

18

The Hebraism or play on words is that Simon is the same word as hearing and yet was a name explanatory of his reception of said revelation, and Cephas or stone was the same word as rock yet was a name explanatory of his reception of the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah who was the foundational rock of the new testament. If Cephas/peter was to be translated rock and Jesus said upon this rock I will build my church, then the entire pun would have no secondary meaning, thus destroying its structure and intent. This would also be confusing to the hearers for the church was built only upon Jesus the Messiahs death and the Fathers power, for he was rooted in God the Father, and is known in the old testament to all the Apostles as the Rock and foundation of all things (especially the church). The fact that Jesus the Messiah said and I say shows that both the revelation from the Father and the declaration of Peter receiving the rock were a related theme that could not be misconstrued. Quite simply God the Father said to Peter: Jesus is the Messiah the Son of the Living God, and Jesus who is also God said Upon this rock [alluding to the fathers words], stone or Peter I will build my church. It was a double affirmative that Jesus was who He said He was, it was also a declaration of his Yahshuas Godhood.
Further evidence that Peter acknowledges that he was not the Chief corner stone but Christ was:

1Pe 2:3-8 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. (4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone (lithos), disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (5) Ye also, as lively stones (lithos), are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone (lithos), elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone (lithos) which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (8) And a stone (lithos) of stumbling, and a rock (Petra) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Peter was alluding to: Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Yahweh Elohim, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Again, even by Peters standards Jesus the Living Messiah is the Foundation stone, while Peter as just a follower of Jesus was simply a lithos. This can also mean that his name actually means stone in the Aramiac.

19

Final Conclusions

Based on everything we have discussed we see that Peter was not the head bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and he most certainly and undoubtedly was not such a thing for the church at Rome. We see that Paul ordained and created the Roman church and that he would have been the one to consecrate its bishop. We saw that the Bishop of Rome circa 198 A.D. being Victor 1 was not the empowered head of the church militant and that his powers failed to bring all the ecclesias into acceptance of the apostasy of Ishtarism , but those in the west followed after tradition and separated themselves from the true faith in the East along with him. We see that the church tradition of the misnamed fathers is without warranty and that the biased words of men who have sympathized with the romanish apostate church remains scarcely reliable as valuable source material or for the exegesis (explanation) of scriptural texts and or even accurate historical incidences. We have saw that the old syriac Aramaic scriptures originated from the Peshetta, and that the Peshetta existed long before the old syriac even came into being. We also saw that the old syriac agreed with the errors found in the Greek scriptures which were based on the Peshetta as well, yet the Peshetta did not mimic those same transliteration or translation errors as the above. This revelation shows that the word rendered Keepa, or chephas holds the meaning of multiple kinds of geological structures meaning: stones, rocks, boulders and or even greater formations, and that the use and reliance upon the old syriac to justify Peter as the rock of the church is swiftly unfounded. Lastly, we see that Jesus the living leader of the Church used both the names Simon and Peter to expound upon the importance of him both being the Messiah and the Almighty Son of Yahweh, and that all these evidences show Peter to be simply an elder, one who was told to feed the apostles, and that he did not have an exalted position over any of the Apostles, nor did he become miraculously infallible and or the ruler of a universal church. All glory be to Yahweh in Jesus the one infallible Leader of the dispersed faithful little flocks all over the world who keep his Holy days and commandments. The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom. Amen

20