An explanation of Matthew 16:13-18 with regard to "the Anointed One" and "the Rock" and "the key of David"

[schaick]

Parker who do you think this is foreshadowing?

Catholics who do you think this is foreshadowing?

Isaiah 22
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.** 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. **23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

 

[Javl]

Parker:

Did you forget, or did you ignore, that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek from the Aramaic.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter , “Cephas” in Aramaic, which means rock.
Therefore Cephas IS the rock on which Jesus built his Church. And, continuing in Aramaic, the Church that Jesus built can be both a congregation or a physical building.

Too many “knowing” people either make this 'misteak" or completely ignore it just to deny what the Bible actually says. Remember, the books of the Bible were compiled by the Catholic Church and given to believers by the Catholic Church. If it wanted to enhance its position and make it that scripture would say what it wanted to, the Catholic Church could have done so many times over. But, the Bible contains the word of God and the Catholic Church was commisioned by Jesus Christ to disseminate His truths which it has done so without change, modification, etc. for the past 2000 years. Anyone who says otherwise does not know anything about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has been true to Jesus’ commission to disseminate and teach. It’s the listeners that don’t hear the full message and put their own spin on it, much like the children’s game of “Telephone”.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
Jesus is establishing a congregation of believers. Please use the following excellent resource for figuring that out from the Greek-English meaning:

blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=16&v=18&t=KJV#conc/18

That is an excellent resource for really searching out the meaning of the New Testament original meanings.

Have a good day.

Hi Parker - Matthew was written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, not Greek. I am not sure why the translation from the link provided is from the Greek to English?

There are many scholars (not Catholic) who have come to agreement after proper translation, that Peter is the Rock.

Not to mention, **numerous ** references from early Church history!

 

[ParkerD]

Parker who do you think this is foreshadowing?

Catholics who do you think this is foreshadowing?

Isaiah 22
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.** 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. **23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

Hi, Schaick,

I have not the slightest question that those verses were foreshadowing Christ and His crucifixion and atonement. Christ had the Davidic role of being the king of Israel–this is known. John in Revelation received the knowledge that “he that hath the key of David” is Christ (Revelation 3:5-7)

It is unfortunate that a translator chose the unclear words “peg driven into the firm place” rather than used the words “nail in a sure place” which is a clear representation of one element of the crucifixion. Even the name, “Eliakim,” means “God shall cause to arise”.

Who “causes us to arise?” (Through the resurrection and through offering repentance and redemption from sin?)

Answer: The Lord, Jesus Christ shall cause thee to arise. We can all rejoice in that knowledge.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - Matthew was written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic, not Greek. I am not sure why the translation from the link provided is from the Greek to English?

There are many scholars (not Catholic) who have come to agreement after proper translation, that Peter is the Rock.

Not to mention, **numerous ** references from early Church history!

Lax16,
Evidently, you may not be familiar with the term “Textus Receptus”. Here is a short beginning paragraph followed by a link to a basic source for reading about that, with also references sources on Wikipedia:

Textus Receptus (Latin: “received text”) is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. The lacking text was translated from Vulgate. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus’s edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

Source: Wikipedia article on “Textus Receptus”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

If you care to really explore this subject in depth, you might care to explain why when Peter said “thou art the Christ”, and it was completely known by a good student of the writings and teachings of the prophets (such as Simon Peter), that “the Christ” was “the Rock of salvation”, that all of a sudden Jesus would not be acknowledging the metaphor that was the prophecy about His coming, and instead change the metaphor to something never before seen in any prophecy and not relating in any way to what had just been the subject of this very important conversation between them.

 

[schaick]

Hi, Schaick,

I have not the slightest question that those verses were foreshadowing Christ and His crucifixion and atonement. Christ had the Davidic role of being the king of Israel–this is known. John in Revelation received the knowledge that “he that hath the key of David” is Christ (Revelation 3:5-7)

It is unfortunate that a translator chose the unclear words “peg driven into the firm place” rather than used the words “nail in a sure place” which is a clear representation of one element of the crucifixion. Even the name, “Eliakim,” means “God shall cause to arise”.

Who “causes us to arise?” (Through the resurrection and through offering repentance and redemption from sin?)

Answer: The Lord, Jesus Christ shall cause thee to arise. We can all rejoice in that knowledge.

Yes I agree it is Jesus!!

I have been told by Catholics that it is Peter, isn’t that interesting.

 

[schaick]

Parker:

Did you forget, or did you ignore, that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek from the Aramaic.

Yes we know that Jesus spoke, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

We have no proof that the Gospels were written first in Aramaic.

We know that Greek was the language of the area.

ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
The lines on the fragments are from Matthew 26 and include the oldest written reference to Mary Magdalene and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. This fragment, written soon after the death of Christ, in the first century, is written in the Greek language, putting in the trash compacter once and for all the notion that the apostles did not speak or write Greek!

 

[adrift]

If you care to really explore this subject in depth, you might care to explain why when Peter said “thou art the Christ”, and it was completely known by a good student of the writings and teachings of the prophets (such as Simon Peter), that “the Christ” was “the Rock of salvation”, that all of a sudden Jesus would not be acknowledging the metaphor that was the prophecy about His coming, and instead change the metaphor to something never before seen in any prophecy and not relating in any way to what had just been the subject of this very important conversation between them.

This ignores that Simone was no longer known as just Simone but either Simon Peter or just Peter. Jesus changed his name. Never in the Bible is there a name change that isn’t significant. It also ignores that Jesus gives the Keys to the Kingdom only to Peter.

 

[schaick]

Now here is the thing Parker, I appreciate your source but we have to remember, even the bible teaches us this.

If we want to understand and search for the true meaning what God wanted us to know we cannot go to places like this. The bible said go to the Church. The Church is the pillar of all truth. We have to stick with the early teachings of the Church and thats ST AND SS. This source could not possible have the fullnes of the truth without SS and ST. That is like having the O.T without the N.T. You must have the complete truth to have it revealed to you.

Remember what the bible said, if it were to reveal all of the truth the world would not be big enough to hold the books.

That is why we must do as Jesus intended and go to the Church.

Just so I understand what you are saying to Parker -to understand the Holy Bible we are not to go read the Holy Bible but go to the Church instead?

I think the verse you mention is actually talking about the many actions, miracles performed by Jesus:

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
Evidently, you may not be familiar with the term “Textus Receptus”. Here is a short beginning paragraph followed by a link to a basic source for reading about that, with also references sources on Wikipedia:

Source: Wikipedia article on “Textus Receptus”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Parker - Even Protestants agree that Textus Receptus is riddled with problems.

1. There are many editions
2. There is not one authoriative text
3. Each edition differs from the next in spelling, words, and verses

I am not sure why you are referencing this to prove your point? It does just the opposite. It is agreed that TR has many different translations that exist in Protestant bibles and that Erasmus made many errors/omissions in his translation.
Why would we look to a copy of a copy of a copy to capture the original Hebrew/Aramaic meaning of Matthew 16:17-19?

Peter, The Rock, and The Confessor
**quotes from scholars from the Christian Monthly Standard **(a Protestant publication)

"True, the Greek petros commonly means “stone” in pre-Christian literature, but the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means “(massive) rock”

“Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”

“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…”

“It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term *kefa *would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock…”

“On this rock I will build by church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”

 

[adrift]

Just so I understand what you are saying to Parker -to understand the Holy Bible we are not to go read the Holy Bible but go to the Church instead?
.

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[lax16]

Yes we know that Jesus spoke, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

We have no proof that the Gospels were written first in Aramaic.

We know that Greek was the language of the area.

ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
The lines on the fragments are from Matthew 26 and include the oldest written reference to Mary Magdalene and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. This fragment, written soon after the death of Christ, in the first century, is written in the Greek language, putting in the trash compacter once and for all the notion that the apostles did not speak or write Greek!

catholicplanet.com

The Writings of the Gospels - Matthew

Matthew was a Jewish tax collector. As a literate Jew, he must have been able to read and write Hebrew. Eusebius and Jerome attest to this fact. **As a tax collector for the **Romans, he must also have been able to read and write Latin. He chose to write the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew because he was writing for the Christians of Judea. Most of the first Christians of Judea were originally Jewish. Many were illiterate, but those who did learn to read and write most often learned Hebrew. It is unlikely that Matthew could read and write Greek.

It was not Matthew’s idea to write the Gospel. **He was prevailed upon by the Hebraic **Christians of Judea to write the Gospel in their language, Hebrew, before he left to preach in distant lands. According to Eusebius:
“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, **he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, **so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7).
Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea, a student of Pamphilus, and an early Church historian. He lived from approximately A.D. 260 to 340. Saint Jerome was born roughly about the same time that Eusebius died, about A.D. 340 or so. **Jerome also states that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. **“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, **composed a gospel of Christ at first published in **Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son,’ and ‘for he shall be called a Nazarene.’ ” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3).
**Saint Jerome states that the Hebrew version of Matthew was still in existence during his **lifetime in Pamphilus’ library at Caesarea. Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea (about a generation or two before Jerome). **Eusebius **studied under Pamphilus at Caesarea **and he also spoke of Matthew’s Gospel in the original Hebrew. **Jerome also knew that the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel was in use during his lifetime by a certain group of Christians in Syria.

 

[onenow1]

Hi Parker, Let’s do a little gleaning as to Jesus words in Matthew’s, writing.

Question posed to the disciples ? Jesus doesn’t ask what do you think of my teaching ? Odd, in human terms don’t you think ? So he takes what is probably the first poll ever taken and asks. Who do people say I am ? Jesus knew none would be able to answer this. He also knew St.Peter would answer rightly, Son of the living God not as the others. Then he is told he is blessed, notice St.Peter alone is blessed.

There is not one other disciple that stands up and answers the Lord except St.Peter.
I ask the question why did God give St.Peter this knowledge ? Without a doubt it is the reason he is given the keys to the kingdom,to be father figure, that the Lord had always used throughout history.

Fast forward to Pentecost and Acts 2: St.Peter lifts up his voice and addresses the crowd; St.Peter says these men are not drunk ! they were on fire with the Lord ! Then after St.Peter’s speech they were cut to the heart,and said what shall we do ? St.Peter says repent and be baptized, those that received his word were baptised about 3000. Jesus last words to the Apostles were:

Jesus last words to his Apostles, excuted perfectly by St. Peter>> Baptize and teach to observe.

Note: If you were one of the eleven and were present, hoiw could you not understand St.Peter as being the father figure to all ?

God Bless All
onenow1opcorn:

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - Even Protestants agree that Textus Receptus is riddled with problems.

1. There are many editions
2. There is not one authoriative text
3. Each edition differs from the next in spelling, words, and verses

I am not sure why you are referencing this to prove your point? It does just the opposite. It is agreed that TR has many different translations that exist in Protestant bibles and that Erasmus made many errors/omissions in his translation.
Why would we look to a copy of a copy of a copy to capture the original Hebrew/Aramaic meaning of Matthew 16:17-19?

Peter, The Rock, and The Confessor
**quotes from scholars from the Christian Monthly Standard **(a Protestant publication)

"True, the Greek petros commonly means “stone” in pre-Christian literature, but the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means “(massive) rock”

“Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”

“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…”

“It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term *kefa *would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock…”

“On this rock I will build by church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”

Lax16,

I suppose that I should respond. As for myself, I would trust no Protestant theologian or Catholic theologian who discussed Matthew 16:18 without referring to the Rock of salvation and the words “the Christ” as being “the Anointed One.”

If you have the pure Aramaic original text spoken by Christ, then I would like to see it. The word translated into the word “church” would not be there.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I suppose that I should respond. As for myself, I would trust no Protestant theologian or Catholic theologian who discussed Matthew 16:18 without referring to the Rock of salvation and the words “the Christ” as being “the Anointed One.”

If you have the pure Aramaic original text spoken by Christ, then I would like to see it. The word translated into the word “church” would not be there.

Parker - thank you for taking time out of your day to respond to my post.

You would trust no Protestant or Catholic theologian? Where are you getting the scripture passage Matthew 16:18? From a Mormon bible??? Or from a Bible written and translated by Catholics and Protestants?

I guess you are being sarcastic when you say that I might possess the pure Aramaic original text spoken by Christ. You see, that is why most people rely on Biblical scholars (reputable ones) to help us in this area. Have you studied Greek and Hebrew? I have not. But there are people who have and I am interested in their translations.

Could you please provide sources from Mormon scholars on this topic? I would think that they are going to take the Protestant translation from the KJV and tell us they agree. Which then you will agree with because it goes against the Catholic teaching and yet when Protestants agree with Catholics on this, you will say that you don’t agree with Protestant translations. :juggle:

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - thank you for taking time out of your day to respond to my post.

You would trust no Protestant or Catholic theologian? Where are you getting the scripture passage Matthew 16:18? From a Mormon bible??? Or from a Bible written and translated by Catholics and Protestants?

I guess you are being sarcastic when you say that I might possess the pure Aramaic original text spoken by Christ. You see, that is why most people rely on Biblical scholars (reputable ones) to help us in this area. Have you studied Greek and Hebrew? I have not. But there are people who have and I am interested in their translations.

Could you please provide sources from Mormon scholars on this topic? I would think that they are going to take the Protestant translation from the KJV and tell us they agree. Which then you will agree with because it goes against the Catholic teaching and yet when Protestants agree with Catholics on this, you will say that you don’t agree with Protestant translations.

Lax16,
I used the words I used because I felt the major in-depth conversation that needs to be had, deals with the following as I had previously written in response:

If you care to really explore this subject in depth, you might care to explain why when Peter said “thou art the Christ”, and it was completely known by a good student of the writings and teachings of the prophets (such as Simon Peter), that “the Christ” was “the Rock of salvation”, that all of a sudden Jesus would not be acknowledging the metaphor that was the prophecy about His coming, and instead change the metaphor to something never before seen in any prophecy and not relating in any way to what had just been the subject of this very important conversation between them.

So we are talking past each other by you referring back to your original point and the Protestant authors you cited on the other thread. I was familiar with that point of view. I disagreed with it then, and disagree with it now, for the reasons I have already stated.

All the talk about Catholics thinking they “own” the Bible because they preserved the writings and translated them, are rather short-sighted in my view. That is like someone who translates Homer into English saying they own the thoughts and writings of Homer. The thoughts of Christ and the writings of the apostles and of Luke are originated and “owned” by Christ and the apostles and Luke. They are also “owned” by the Holy Spirit who is the testifier of truth.

Fine, some scholars and sincere people with love for God and Christ preserved the writings and others translated them–of which I consider William Tyndale among them to have been the most “inspired” in his translation and which was much of the basis of the KJV translation.

I had no idea whether you think you have or understand the original Aramaic text that Christ actually taught. You brought up Aramaic as the language that needs to be understood to understand the meaning of Christ’s words. That would mean, I had supposed, that you have studied a way to glean the original meaning from the original source–Christ Himself.

I don’t understand your last paragraph. I use the KJV in my studies, but occasionally look at the Greek-English transliteration as a help for understanding source languages. The word “church” has several different and distinct meanings, one of which can be “congregation of believers”, and I think that is the meaning conveyed by the text in its context.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
I used the words I used because I felt the major in-depth conversation that needs to be had, deals with the following as I had previously written in response:

If you care to really explore this subject in depth, you might care to explain why when Peter said “thou art the Christ”, and it was completely known by a good student of the writings and teachings of the prophets (such as Simon Peter), that “the Christ” was “the Rock of salvation”, that all of a sudden Jesus would not be acknowledging the metaphor that was the prophecy about His coming, and instead change the metaphor to something never before seen in any prophecy and not relating in any way to what had just been the subject of this very important conversation between them.

So we are talking past each other by you referring back to your original point and the Protestant authors you cited on the other thread. I was familiar with that point of view. I disagreed with it then, and disagree with it now, for the reasons I have already stated.

All the talk about Catholics thinking they “own” the Bible because they preserved the writings and translated them, are rather short-sighted in my view. That is like someone who translates Homer into English saying they own the thoughts and writings of Homer. The thoughts of Christ and the writings of the apostles and of Luke are originated and “owned” by Christ and the apostles and Luke. They are also “owned” by the Holy Spirit who is the testifier of truth.

Fine, some scholars and sincere people with love for God and Christ preserved the writings and others translated them–of which I consider William Tyndale among them to have been the most “inspired” in his translation and which was much of the basis of the KJV translation.

I had no idea whether you think you have or understand the original Aramaic text that Christ actually taught. You brought up Aramaic as the language that needs to be understood to understand the meaning of Christ’s words. That would mean, I had supposed, that you have studied a way to glean the original meaning from the original source–Christ Himself.

I don’t understand your last paragraph. I use the KJV in my studies, but occasionally look at the Greek-English transliteration as a help for understanding source languages. The word “church” has several different and distinct meanings, one of which can be “congregation of believers”, and I think that is the meaning conveyed by the text in its context.

Parker - Re-read my post. I didn’t respond to the portion you re-posted because I was not prepared to answer yet.

If you will notice, I was strictly responding to Textus Receptus and quoted Protestant scholars to prove that there is disagreement, even among Protestants, regarding scripture and translation.

I will respond to the “in depth exploration” when I have a chance to read up on it. I was not ignoring that portion, just not answering yet and had much to provide on the first part of your post.

As to Catholics thinking they “own the Bible” - that is probably the funniest thing I have heard about us - all these years of being told that we don’t know anything about the Bible and now we think we own it…

Now, St. Jerome did a marvelous job in his translation, and we (Catholics) are all very grateful for his extreme hard work and diligence - it’s just that, most Catholics don’t even know who he is!

 

[adrift]

Lax16,
I used the words I used because I felt the major in-depth conversation that needs to be had, deals with the following as I had previously written in response:

If you care to really explore this subject in depth, you might care to explain why when Peter said “thou art the Christ”, and it was completely known by a good student of the writings and teachings of the prophets (such as Simon Peter), that “the Christ” was “the Rock of salvation”, that all of a sudden Jesus would not be acknowledging the metaphor that was the prophecy about His coming, and instead change the metaphor to something never before seen in any prophecy and not relating in any way to what had just been the subject of this very important conversation between them.

Would you show a source for this supposition? The Jews had a misunderstanding of the Messiah.

Jesus did not mean a metaphor. Only a twisted reading of the text could render it a metaphor. The context does not support it. It is plain that there was a change of name. It is plain that their was a giving of Keys to Peter alone.

 

[ParkerD]

Would you show a source for this supposition? The Jews had a misunderstanding of the Messiah.

Jesus did not mean a metaphor. Only a twisted reading of the text could render it a metaphor. The context does not support it. It is plain that there was a change of name. It is plain that their was a giving of Keys to Peter alone.

Adrift,
Indeed they did, but that was not because they didn’t have scriptural background that would have taught them about the Rock of salvation, and would have allowed them to recognize the Messiah and the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Him, just as He pointed out to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection. Peter was not in the dark about those prophecies.

I think you may not understand the word “metaphor.” Surely you aren’t saying that Peter was literally a rock. So it is not a “twisted meaning” to figure out which metaphor is being used, and what it means.

 

[lax16]

Yes we know that Jesus spoke, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

We have no proof that the Gospels were written first in Aramaic.

We know that Greek was the language of the area.

ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
The lines on the fragments are from Matthew 26 and include the oldest written reference to Mary Magdalene and the betrayal of Christ by Judas. This fragment, written soon after the death of Christ, in the first century, is written in the Greek language, putting in the trash compacter once and for all the notion that the apostles did not speak or write Greek!

**from Catholic Planet - Mark

Which Language?**
Which language did Mark use to write the Gospel? Mark and his mother Mary lived in Judea, near Jerusalem. The community of believers, one of the earliest groups of Christians, met in their house for worship and prayer. **Most of the first Christians, especially those from Judea, were Jews who became Christians. If Mark was educated in Judea, when he was a child or teenager, he would have been taught by Jew**ish teachers. Among the Jews, the priests were the teachers. What limited schools they had were led and taught by Jewish priests, who read and wrote Hebrew themselves and who taught mainly Hebrew reading and writing. **If Mark learned to read and write as a child or teen in Judea, then he learned Hebrew. **

However, Mark did move to Rome as a young man. He studied and learned there for many years. Rome was the center of Roman culture and learning; and the Roman language was Latin. As someone learning and studying at Rome, Mark must have learned Latin. Most of the books he would study, other than the Hebrew Scriptures, would have been in Latin. **Among the Romans, the Latin language was first; the Greek language was second. **Most Roman scholars had no knowledge of, nor use for, Hebrew.

**When Mark wrote the Gospel, he was writing for the Christians of Rome and so he must **have written the Gospel of Mark in Latin. Mark wrote the Gospel in Latin because the Christians of Rome most often used Latin as their written language. For similar reasons, Matthew wrote in Hebrew because he was writing for a group of Christians who most often used Hebrew as their written language.

Luke
Luke wrote long enough after Mark and Matthew for both Gospels to have been circulated widely. Mark had Matthew as a source; Luke had Mark as a source. Luke also had Matthew as a source, but to a limited extent because Matthew was written in Hebrew. Luke was a gentile, not a Jew, and so he did not know much Hebrew. **Luke was a well-****educated physician. Among the well-educated non-Jews of that time period, both **Latin and Greek were studied. Luke knew Latin and Greek. Luke also traveled widely, often with the Apostle Paul. Many people in the area around the Mediterranean where they traveled used Aramaic as their daily spoken language. Luke also must have known Aramaic. Now Saint Paul was a Jew from the Pharisaic tradition and he knew Hebrew well. So Luke may have learned some Hebrew from Paul. But, even so, Hebrew was the language that Luke knew least well. This language difference explains why, among parallel passages in the Synoptics, Luke is closer to Mark than to Matthew.