Another Peter thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter teadough
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which part of the article that you linked to do you need help with? It is a long article.
 
The first part “petra” is simply the feminine usage. When Petra is used, it is an object, just as the Greek describes.
  • Code: 
      			 [Matt. 16:18](http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_16.htm#16%C2%A0), * 					"And I also  				say to you that you are Peter  					***(petros)*,**** and upon this **rock ** 					***(petra)*** I will build  				My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." 					*
  • Code: 
      			 [Matt. 27:60](http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_27.htm#60%C2%A0), *"and laid it in  				his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the **rock 					 *****(petra)***; and he rolled  				a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."*
  • Code: 
      			[1 Cor. 10:4](http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_10.htm#And), *"and all drank the  				same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual  				rock **(petras)** which followed them; and the **rock *****(petra)***was  				Christ."*
  • Code: 
      			 [1 Pet. 2:8](http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Pet/1Pet_2.htm#8%C2%A0), speaking of Jesus  					says that he is *"A stone of  				stumbling and a **rock *** 					**(petra)** *of offense"; for they stumble because they are  				disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also  				appointed."*
  • this rock.
  • the rock.
  • a spiritual rock.
  • the rock.
  • a rock.
All Matt Slick is proving is that the inspired authors of the New Testament were also grammatically accurate.

Look at Matthew 16: If Jesus had said, "“You are a Rock it would have been Petra. But since He said, You are Rock”, Matthew was forced to write “Petros” in the Greek translation.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Which part of the article that you linked to do you need help with? It is a long article.
Click to expand...
I get really confused with languages,esp when it comes to someone explaining Greek. This article seem to state the opposite of what Catholic teaching is in regards to how petro and petras is explained as well as Cephas.

2 examples from article-

“We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; “petras” in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn’t we?”

and this part really puzzles me

"The Aramaic Kepha

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas, which is not a name in Aramaic."
 
NotWorthy said:
The first part “petra” is simply the feminine usage. When Petra is used, it is an object, just as the Greek describes.
  • Code: 
      			 [Matt. 16:18](http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_16.htm#16%C2%A0), * 					"And I also  				say to you that you are Peter  					***(petros)*,**** and upon this **rock *** 					**(petra)*** I will build  				My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." 					*
  • Code: 
      			 [Matt. 27:60](http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_27.htm#60%C2%A0), *"and laid it in  				his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the **rock 					 *****(petra)***; and he rolled  				a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."*
  • Code: 
      			[1 Cor. 10:4](http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Cor/1cor_10.htm#And), *"and all drank the  				same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual  				rock **(petras)*** which followed them; and the **rock ****(petra)***was  				Christ."*
  • Code: 
      			 [1 Pet. 2:8](http://www.carm.org/kjv/1Pet/1Pet_2.htm#8%C2%A0), speaking of Jesus  					says that he is *"A stone of  				stumbling and a **rock *** 					**(petra)** *of offense"; for they stumble because they are  				disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also  				appointed."*
  • this rock.
  • the rock.
  • a spiritual rock.
  • the rock.
  • a rock.
All Matt Slick is proving is that the inspired authors of the New Testament were also grammatically accurate.

Look at Matthew 16: If Jesus had said, "“You are a Rock it would have been Petra. But since He said, You are Rock”, Matthew was forced to write “Petros” in the Greek translation.
Click to expand...
I think I am starting to see a clearer picture with the Greek language. I have to hit the hay but will check back in the a.m. Thanks

PS-some of the people on that forum are ruthless ruthless:blush:
 
teadough said:
"The Aramaic Kepha

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, “but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’.” The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas,” (which is translated Peter).” The word “Peter” here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas, which is not a name in Aramaic."
Click to expand...
This is a straw man argument. We know that Aramaic has one word for rock. Kepha. We know Matthew wrote the original in Aramaic.

I wouldn’t put much trust in what Matt Slick writes. I once PM’d him asking why his site perpetuates the lie that “Catholics added 7 books to the Bible at Trent”. He simply responded, “Because you guys did”.

At that point, I wrote off Mr. Slick as any kind of honest Theologian who was searching for the Truth. He was simply a man who is willing to invent his own truth. That’s put him in the same category as Jack Chick.
 
teadough said:
PS-some of the people on that forum are ruthless ruthless:blush:
Click to expand...
I think this is the understatement of the year!!! You would think you could feel a little more love on a Christian site. It’s simply not there.
 
NotWorthy said:
I think this is the understatement of the year!!! You would think you could feel a little more love on a Christian site. It’s simply not there.
Click to expand...
I have just recently started going there and had to really sit down and pray about everything. I had one guy laughing at me because he was saying that in Revelations the Anti-Christ was going to “overcome” the Saints in Heaven. I asked him “are you really sure that God would allow Satan to come into Heaven and abolish the Saints?”. His response was “hey,it’s Gods Word saying it,not mine…are you saying you don’t believe Gods word?”:eek:

I am not talking down about anyone because I can understand how they feel and I just pray they come to the Truth.Funny thing is they are praying for me to come to the Truth and get “saved”
 
NotWorthy has done a good job explaining that. If you want to read an amusing thread discussing Matt Slick’s website, go here. 😃

Catholic Apologist Tim Staples debated him on-air last year. Links to that are here.

Slick also debated Mark Bonocore in 2006. (MP3 here) If memory serves, toward the end of this debate, Mark goes into the Greek about Peter with not much of a rebuttal by Slick.

This is also a good treatment of the Greek about Peter. The whole website is a good resource for exhaustive responses to faulty claims against the Church.
 
👍 Thanks to everyone who helped me out on this thread. I have a much better understanding now. I never did doubt our view I just have a hard time with othe languages. I think I am going to save this thread link for a while.

God Bless:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top