po18guy
Well-known member
Jesus taught unity and denial of the self. To that end, He established a Church to see that His teachings were carried on. Is it best to eat what Jesus serves, or to add our own ingredients to the recipe?
- Status
P
Publisher
Guest
I understand that is your belief…unity isn’t dependant on me or you…it is the work of God in our midst…it is the Holy Spirit which makes us one in Him…it is not required for you to embrace me…it is required that I embrace you…how you respond is your choice…how I respond to the love and mercy of God and share it with others…whether they accept me or not…is what is important to me…“I know Whom **I have believed **and am persuaded that He is able to keep **what I have commited **to Him against that day.”
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Jesus’ use of*** petros and petra side by side has been called ‘a play on words.’* Our Lord placed the word petra alongside the word*** petros*** deliberately and His disciples understood what He meant by petra for He had used this word once before in teaching His disciples and the multitudes, using it with a meaning that was unmistakable to them.
The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling." The word rock is petra, which means “a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring.” *
The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek.* Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock.
The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and** petra in the feminine,*** proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?
Let us quote the text again:** “I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). The text indi*cates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.**
Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20) “He is the Rock, His work is perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).
If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not pre*vail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn’t he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders” (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.
If Jesus would have built His church on Peter,*** petros***, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Long before Jesus was born He was considered the Rock. Isaiah declares: “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cor*nerstone, a sure foundation” (Isaiah 28:16). Peter applies this prophecy to Christ. He wrote: “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded” (1 Peter 2:6). David said: “Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I” (Psalm 61:2) (Douay, Psalm 60:3).
E
elvisman
Guest
I’ve had this debate with you on other threads and you always insist that Jesus spoke Greek to his Apostles. He didn’t.
What Jesus actually told Peter - in ARAMAIC - was ". . . you are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my Church . . ." There is no distinction between the 2 uses of the word in the Aramaic language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke.
Secoondly - there is much scholarly thought about the Gospel of Matthew having been originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.
So much for your argument about the “original” Greek . . .
po18guy
Well-known member
Matthew was written in Aramaic. The Greek is a translation.
po18guy
Well-known member
For our brother’s edification, here is an excerpt from Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.
“The original language was Aramaic, the language that Jesus and His disciples spoke in Palestine at the time. At an early date, it was translated into Koine Greek, the language in which it has come down to us us.”
J
jmcrae
Guest
And even if it weren’t, what is going on with the thought process that says that Jesus spoke in Greek to His Apostles (a foreign language to all of them) in anticipation of the “petros/petra” debate that began in the 15th century - but at the same time asserts that Jesus had no idea that His Apostles were going to become the Pope and the college of Bishops within a single generation (despite appointing Peter to be “chief Shepherd” of the whole Church, in John 21:15-19) - that He really intended a loose collection of happy-clapping hippies, lurving one another, and not getting into such debates as we see in Acts 15, or correcting one another’s theology, as we see in pretty much every epistle of the New Testament?
And depite Christ’s own admonition to the Apostles that they must remain united in doctrine, and teach others the same.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This is an inspirational post. and not an easy arrived at truth for many I might add.
J
jmcrae
Guest
“Unintentionally?” Jesus is God the Word that created all that exists, both visible and invisible. How could He have created the Church “unintentionally” while creating everything else on purpose?
And, without a standard of authority outside of themselves, how are people supposed to know whether they believe what He taught? Keep in mind that the Bible came to us from the Catholic Church - it was a Pope who infallibly defined the canon of the Scriptures - so, even if you are going by Scripture alone, you are still relying on the authority of the Church, to know what is (or is not) Scripture.
po18guy
Well-known member
Despite what our bible-only friends maintain, Jesus explicitly founded a Church, and did so on Peter. The scriptural evidence is simply overwhelming - if not exactly comforting to them.And even if it weren’t, what is going on with the thought process that says that Jesus spoke in Greek to His Apostles (a foreign language to all of them) in anticipation of the “petros/petra” debate that began in the 15th century - but at the same time asserts that Jesus had no idea that His Apostles were going to become the Pope and the college of Bishops within a single generation (despite appointing Peter to be “chief Shepherd” of the whole Church, in John 21:15-19) - that He really intended a loose collection of happy-clapping hippies, lurving one another, and not getting into such debates as we see in Acts 15, or correcting one another’s theology, as we see in pretty much every epistle of the New Testament?
And depite Christ’s own admonition to the Apostles that they must remain united in doctrine, and teach others the same.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
What language was the original NT written in?
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is important to realize that the original New Testament wasn’t written until after the Greek-speaking Gentiles had become the majority, and the Church itself had become a distinct religion, and no longer affiliated with Judaism.
The more important question is, what language was Jesus actually speaking, to Peter and to the other Apostles, in 30-33 AD? What language it was written in is immaterial, since it is only a record of events - it is the actual events (and what Jesus actually said) that is important - not how it sounds in Greek - but even in that case, the form of Greek being used did not have the word “petros” in it - the translator of Matthew’s Gospel was inventing a word, to use as a name for a man, based on the word “Petra” which is feminine and thus unsuitable for a man.
We see the same process in reverse when little girls are being named after St. Peter. “Peter” is a boy’s name, so girls being named after Peter are not called “Peter” - they are called “Petra.” Just as girls being named after John are not called “John,” but “Joanne.” “Petros” is the masculine name for one being named after “Petra.”
R
rev_kevin
Guest
No the question is what language was the NT written in?
J
jmcrae
Guest
First in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek.
And the question is irrelevant to whether Jesus intended to establish a Church, because the Scriptures are a record of what happened - they are not the actual events, themselves. The record could have been in any language - what the Holy Spirit inspired was not the language (the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with “petros/petra”), but that these particular events were recorded, by bringing them to the minds of those who wrote about them.
And by the way, Peter had already been Pope, and then died, and left Linus as his successor, by the time anyone thought of translating the Gospel of Matthew into Greek. The Papacy was well-established.
E
elvisman
Guest
What does it matter, Kevin? It wasn’t SPOKEN in Greek. The Bible doesn’t ever mention Jesus having written one, single word. It doesn’t ever mention Jesus telling his disciples to write down one, single word.
You lose the argument by default.
I realize that this fact is very discomforting to you because it is an argument that you cannot possibly win. History, linguistics and Biblical scholarship are ALL against you, my angry friend.**
R
rev_kevin
Guest
My research says that the NT could have been written in many different languages, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Koine Greek.First in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek.
And the question is irrelevant to whether Jesus intended to establish a Church, because the Scriptures are a record of what happened - they are not the actual events, themselves. The record could have been in any language - what the Holy Spirit inspired was not the language (the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with “petros/petra”), but that these particular events were recorded, by bringing them to the minds of those who wrote about them.
And by the way, Peter had already been Pope, and then died, and left Linus as his successor, by the time anyone thought of translating the Gospel of Matthew into Greek. The Papacy was well-established.
The original texts were written beginning around AD 50 in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire where they were composed.
Greek, although there is some evidence which suggests Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic. All trace of this is lost however, and we only have the Greek manuscripts available.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
So Jesus never wrote a single word nor did he tell his disciples to write anything down. Now explain to me how I lose by default? NO you lose by default because the Bible was claimed to be written by the CC and no body told them to write anything down.
It matters because we are reading, learning, teaching from the Bible. I don’t matter what it was spoken in, the fact is that is what the CC claims to have given us and was translated by the CC.
What do you mean by this. I’m not angry at all.
E
elvisman
Guest
In Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca of the educated and of commerce. However, Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Jewish masses. Guess who the Gospel of Matthew was written to? The JEWS.
Like I said, Kevin, history AND linguistics are against you on this one. In llight of this - the whole Petros/Petra argument is almost comical.**
E
elvisman
Guest
You lose by default because you refuse to accept that they spoke Aramaic - not Greek. What language it was spoken in and WHO it was spoken to has great bearing on the meaning.
Because you sound angry and frustrated.What do you mean by this. I’m not angry at all.
N
Nicea325
Guest
This is a dead issue,which non-Catholics continue to bring up. Jesus DID NOT speak Classical Greek or Koine Greek,he spoke Aramaic…period!
- Status