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

1

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

Peshitta’s explanation of rock ........................................................................................................................................... 17

True meaning of upon this rock I will build my church ................................................................................................... 17

Final Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 20

2

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 Paul’s mantle (if it were

passable, dealing in hypothetical’s also disregarding the passing of Elijah’s 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 ecclesia’s 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 ecclesia’s 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.

3

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 ecclesia’s, 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 Paul’s 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

4

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 John’s 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 man’s 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 1’s 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.

Victor’s 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 Ecclesia’s 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 wasn’t 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

5

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. It’s 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 anti-

Christian 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 Victor’s 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?

6

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

7

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

8

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:

9

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 Jerusalem’s 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 wickedness’s.

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 father’s 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 men’s works be. If their words cannot be justified by outside evidences of at least two or three

10

witnesses who were unaffiliated with any regime especially the “catholic” then their words cannot be admitted as

evidences towards any definitive realities.

11

Testing scripture by scripture is one chief rule of faith.

12

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".

13

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:

14

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)

15

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:

16

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 Gab riel Roth pp. 21-25)

17

Peshitta’s 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 wasn’t

revealing some new revelation. What peter did was combine Yahshua’s Sonship with the fact that he was the

promised Messiah “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (kjv).

The Hebraism

18

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

שמעון

shim‛ôn

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.

Let’s 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. Let’s 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.

19

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 Yahshua’s 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 Peter’s 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.

20

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 ecclesia’s

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