Early Church Fathers & Papal Primacy

[Sirach2]

calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

jimmyakin.com/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html

Two points to notice “Peshitta” and “In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection.”

Which in my earlier post it how I took this also. Which gets to the real point of the early church fathers and Cyprian in council. Its acknowledged the apostolic succession, its assumed in acknowledgement all the Bishops in communion shared the like authority by the Keys with binding and loosing further repeated and elaborated in Matthew 18 (“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.).

However, most importantly it “assumes” the “faith” only and by doing this as I contend its not only incorrect but then the same applies to “all the Bishops”. As I contend this is “impossible” and “unthinkable” and further seeing the faith and person and physical and spiritual does explain the word dynamics

So you is for sure Rock and Rock but the dynamics change as Jimmy stated and to reflect the physical and spiritual/faith and of Peter 17 and further of all the Bishops as stated in 18.

:clapping: Thanks, Gary.

(How much do you want to bet our friend Rohzek will denounce all of this information?)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good morning, Gary. Praise be to God for this very special feast today of St. Matthew!

Yes, if we consider that this apostle wrote in Hebrew, NOT Greek, his version of Mt. 16:18 is the most authentic, especially since he was one of the 12, and would have been present among them to know this truth. The Greek is merely a later translation. We must go to the original Aramaic/Hebrew writings to discern the intent of Our Lord, as you and the rest of us know.

Praise be!

usccb.org/bible/readings/092115.cfm

I was reading verbum.com/ which of course is completely based on our oral tradition of teaching and learning which I think sounds great. Or you can read the KJV and Strong and Bible hub and which I use admittedly but with understanding. And read bad web sights and intentionally introduced polemics and a million question marks on greek translation

 

[Rohzek]

Sirach, first off, the Peshitta is a translation of the original Greek from the 2nd century. So to argue that the Peshitta shows the true intent while the original Greek does not is a big stretch. That being said, I do not deny that Jesus told Peter those words in Aramaic. My point though is that Christ had already often spoken of the faith as being the rock for people to build their houses on etc. So Peter knew that Christ was referring to his faith as the basis of the Church, not Peter himself.

Jesus Christ did not appoint a successor. He is the head of his Church. Find me any of the Church Fathers who declare that Christ appointed a successor. You will not find it. Nor does the papacy go as far as to declare itself the successor of Christ.

As for your Aaron example, I’ve looked and looked and you’ve never referenced what exactly about Aaron you are trying to say other than that his priesthood was of the highest authority. I won’t dispute that historical fact. However, I see that it has very little to do with the New Covenant. Furthermore, did the not prophets, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, supersede the authority of the priesthood of the Old Covenant? By all indications they did.

Again, with Luke 22:32, you are referring to the Peshitta as though it is more authoritative than the Greek original. It is not. Both the Greek and the Latin understand “confirm” as to mean “strengthen.” You’re adding a meaning of authority that simply isn’t there or isn’t apparent.

Grammar does not distort the true meaning. God chose Matthew to write his gospel. Matthew, through the guidance on the Holy Spirit, intentionally wrote it in Synagogue Greek. Being literate, Matthew was very conscious of proper grammar. Greek and Latin both take gender case very seriously especially since the languages lack a strong sentence structure and contain no articles. Proper grammar is therefore imperative for communication to even be possible.

When looking at Ephesians ii. 19-20 The verses are:
“Now then you are not strangers and foreigners: but you are citizens of the saints, and the domesticals of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, JESUS Christ himself being the highest corner stone.” “Corner stone” is, of course, a different metaphor from “foundation stone.” Christ is at once the Architect i.e., the Builder., of the Church and the “corner stone” holding it together. But He built it upon the Apostles and Prophets as foundation stones, Peter being the “foundation rock” upon which Christ based the whole of His building. That is the sense of the words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” And such is the only interpretation sound scholarship will permit.

So the actual translation of Mt. 16:18 is:

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂
Literally,
“And I say to thee: That thou art a rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of sheol shall not prevail against it.”

First off, why would there need to be two rocks? Is the rock of Christ alone not sufficient? Again, you make my case. You’ve cited scripture that shows that Christ is the rock. And then you add on another interpretation that Peter is a rock too and assume that it is clear and academically indisputable.

As for your Aramaic translation from the Peshitta, Aramaic seems to lack articles too. Various translations of the verse therefore yield very different implications. And because Aramaic lacks the gender distinction between the two usages of “rock” it becomes even less clear.

dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=Matthew+16:18&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150%

Lastly, petros is a word in Greek. It is just that by the time of Koine, it had the exact same meaning as “petra.”

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach, first off, the **Peshitta **is a translation of the original Greek from the 2nd century. is a rock too and assume that it is clear and academically indisputable.

It was not me who mentioned this, but GaryTaylor.

As I said, I am done with this topic. You are entrenched so deeply in your views that nobody has a snowball’s chance of getting through to you

I wish you well.

 

[Rohzek]

It sure seemed that you made that claim, that the Aramaic Peshitta was more authoritative.

Grammar distorts the process when the true intent is obvious in Aramaic.

Yes, if we consider that this apostle wrote in Hebrew, NOT Greek, his version of Mt. 16:18 is the most authentic, especially since he was one of the 12, and would have been present among them to know this truth. The Greek is merely a later translation. We must go to the original Aramaic/Hebrew writings to discern the intent of Our Lord, as you and the rest of us know.

See my comment about the Greek use of “Kephas” in an earlier post - no grammar problem there whatsoever. As for Tradition, I ask again which came first for 1000 years? Catholicism or Orthodox? Who broke away? Who failed to listen to Tradition and those who handed down the true intent of Jesus?

You don’t understand the grammar problem that I pointed out. Have you taken any Romance or Latin-based language? Anyone who has knows the importance of gender. I’m not talking about a difference of words or word meanings. I’m talking about gender. And the only person here who seems to have understood this point was Vico (and possibly Gary too), who referred to an expert who stated that the grammar possibly or may not indicate a different referent than Peter. And that’s fine position on the Matthew verse alone. However, it isn’t a sure thing and there is still much room for disagreement. Your inability to appreciate this fine point that occurred pages ago I think betrays a lack of understanding of the importance of gender in many other languages.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Peshitta is not a matter of authority but is reflective of the Aramaic in its use of verse in question Matthew 16:18 It indicates the same usage of words as I’ll show you…

dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Matthew+16:18&source=ubs&font=Serto+Batnan

Here…

k)p noun sg. emphatic= k)p N → kyp N
kyp, kypˀ (kēp̄, kēp̄ā) n.f. rock, stone
Syriac usually ܟܐܦܐ

1 crag Qum, JLAtg, LJLA. --(a) large rock Com.
2 stone Com, -OA -OfA -BA. --(a) as a substance Syr.
3 idiomatic usages . --(a) w. brq, ברד : hailstone Syr, JBA. --(b) w. ܦܐܬܐ : cornerstone Syr. --(c) דנורא : meteorite, meteor JBA.
4 pl. jewelry Syr, JBA.
5 (med.) pl. : calculi Syr.

Then here…

k)p noun sg. emphatic= k)p N → kyp N
kyp, kypˀ (kēp̄, kēp̄ā) n.f. rock, stone
Syriac usually ܟܐܦܐ

1 crag Qum, JLAtg, LJLA. --(a) large rock Com.
2 stone Com, -OA -OfA -BA. --(a) as a substance Syr.
3 idiomatic usages . --(a) w. brq, ברד : hailstone Syr, JBA. --(b) w. ܦܐܬܐ : cornerstone Syr. --(c) דנורא : meteorite, meteor JBA.
4 pl. jewelry Syr, JBA.
5 (med.) pl. : calculi Syr.

Same, however this; “Feminine Singular Emphatic” indicates proper noun and noun, follow, which comes back to above in my thinking.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First off, why would there need to be two rocks?

You wouldn’t and thats your answer you would have to have TWO proper nouns, and nowhere is that the case especially in the case we discussing. For sure Peter is Cephas thus a name of a person the first proper noun, in the second case the same person is the topic which for example as I am suggesting indicates a class of this person in question, namely his faith- spiritual rock.

 

[GaryTaylor]

the Peshitta is a translation of the original Greek from the 2nd century

No not at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

I think your misunderstanding the sequence, the original 2nd century is in Aramaic

The Aramaic New Testament exists in two forms: (1) the classical Aramaic, or Syriac, New Testament, part of the Peshitta Bible, or “Peshitta;”

(2) the “Assyrian Modern” New Testament and Psalms, published by the Bible Society in Lebanon

The hypothesis of an Aramaic original for the New Testament holds that the original text of the New Testament was not written in Greek, as held by the majority of scholars, but in the Aramaic language, which was the primary language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.

The position of the Assyrian Church of the East is that the Syriac Peshitta (a Bible version which is written in a vernacular form of Aramaic), used in that church, is the original of the New Testament.[2] Variants of this view are held by some individuals who may argue for a lost Aramaic text preceding the Peshitta as the basis for the New Testament.

This view is to be distinguished from the view held by most historical critics, that the Greek New Testament (particularly the gospels of Matthew and Mark) may have had Aramaic source texts which are no longer extant.[3]
The most noteworthy advocate of the “Peshitta-original” hypothesis in the West was George Lamsa of the Aramaic Bible Center.

George Lamsa is responsible for second (2) translation into English.

The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means “Straight”, in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.

peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

 

[Rohzek]

No not at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

I think your misunderstanding the sequence, the original 2nd century is in Aramaic

George Lamsa is responsible for second (2) translation into English.

peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

Of course the Church of the East claims that the NT was originally written entirely in Aramaic. They’ve always claimed that. However, most scholars today regard such claims as total nonsense. The vast majority view is that the NT was composed and written originally in Greek. There is supposition of a mysterious and missing “Q” source (thought to be originally written in Greek I might add), and that’s very well possible. But it is only one source amongst many.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament#Majority_view

Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek and that an Aramaic source text was used for portions of the New Testament, especially the gospels. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Greek Gospels may be translations from an Aramaic source referred to as “Q”, but hold that the Gospels’ text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. Scholars of all stripes have acknowledged the presence of scattered Aramaic expressions, transliterated and then translated, in the Greek New Testament.

An example of how mainstream scholars have dealt with Aramaic influences within an overall view of the Gospels’ original Greek-language development may be found in Martin Hengel’s recent synthesis of studies of the linguistic situation in Palestine during the time of Jesus and the Gospels:

Since non-literary, simple Greek knowledge or competency in multiple languages was relatively widespread in Jewish Palestine including Galilee, and a Greek-speaking community had already developed in Jerusalem shortly after Easter, one can assume that this linguistic transformation [from “the Aramaic native language of Jesus” to “the Greek Gospels”] began very early. … [M]issionaries, above all ‘Hellenists’ driven out of Jerusalem, soon preached their message in the Greek language. We find them in Damascus as early as AD 32 or 33. A certain percentage of Jesus’ earliest followers were presumably bilingual and could therefore report, at least in simple Greek, what had been heard and seen. This probably applies to Cephas/Peter, Andrew, Philip or John. Mark, too, who was better educated in Jerusalem than the Galilean fishermen, belonged to this milieu. The great number of phonetically correct Aramaisms and his knowledge of the conditions in Jewish Palestine compel us to assume a Palestinian Jewish-Christian author. Also, the author’s Aramaic native language is still discernible in the Marcan style.

 

[Rohzek]

Peshitta is not a matter of authority but is reflective of the Aramaic in its use of verse in question Matthew 16:18 It indicates the same usage of words as I’ll show you…

dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Matthew+16:18&source=ubs&font=Serto+Batnan

Same, however this; “Feminine Singular Emphatic” indicates proper noun and noun, follow, which comes back to above in my thinking.

I wouldn’t be so sure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language#Grammar

The emphatic or determined state is an extended form of the noun that functions similarly to the definite article. It is marked with a suffix (for example, kṯāḇtâ, “the handwriting”).** Although its original grammatical function seems to have been to mark definiteness, it is used already in Imperial Aramaic to mark all important nouns, even if they should be considered technically indefinite. This practice developed to the extent that the absolute state became extraordinarily rare in later varieties of Aramaic.**

Imperial Aramaic begins in 500 BC, so by the time of Christ the emphasis is quite likely to be meaningless and only indicates an absolute state.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sorry I don’t see where you have a single point, none.

Buts lets address the disturbing language first, the total nonsense claim by means of “general belief” is unacceptable. Apply that same logic to the majority numbers of the Catholic to Eastern Orthodox in “general belief” . You have a double standard, bad logic and no point in that case?

Which still leaves a deafening silence that Christ spoke “Aramaic” and so did Peter. And nothing changes that.

Catholicism - 1.2 billion

Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million

Imperial Aramaic begins in 500 BC

Which is suppose to mean what? It addressed nothing with the grammar. I don’t see where you have a single point, sorry. In fact this…

The emphatic or determined state is an extended form of the noun that functions similarly to the definite article

Makes my point as you have a proper noun to start with then “The emphatic or determined state is an extended form of the noun” thus common noun, the determined state refers to something which has already been mentioned, namely “Peter-Rock” the proper noun. And as I stated earlier ALL the pronouns are in question 2-7 “you” are in relation to this just discussed.

 

[Rohzek]

Sorry I don’t see where you have a single point, none.

My points are obvious.

Buts lets address the disturbing language first, the total nonsense claim by means of “general belief” is unacceptable. Apply that same logic to the majority numbers of the Catholic to Eastern Orthodox in “general belief” . You have a double standard, bad logic and no point in that case?

Which still leaves a deafening silence that Christ spoke “Aramaic” and so did Peter. And nothing changes that.

It’s a nonsense argument because there is not a single Aramaic manuscript or even a fragment of one that predates the Greek gospels. Additionally all supposed references to an Aramaic original are vague and do not even clearly indicate a text written in another language.

Catholicism - 1.2 billion

Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million

Not even the Arians made that argument when they were the vast majority 1700 years ago. Arguments survive on merits, not numbers.

Which is suppose to mean what? It addressed nothing with the grammar. I don’t see where you have a single point, sorry. In fact this…

If you read past the first sentence, you would understand. This is why I bolded the text.

Although its original grammatical function seems to have been to mark definiteness, it is used already in Imperial Aramaic to mark all important nouns, even if they should be considered technically indefinite. This practice developed to the extent that the absolute state became extraordinarily rare in later varieties of Aramaic.

This means that your point that the second word for “rock” is emphatic is in all likelihood meaningless. The “emphatic case,” if we might call it that, replaced the normal “absolute case” by the time of Christ. This process in the change of the language began in 500 BC. Considering that Christ came 500 years later, it is safe to say that the emphatic point that you make is not necessarily clear.

Makes my point as you have a proper noun to start with then “The emphatic or determined state is an extended form of the noun” thus common noun, the determined state refers to something which has already been mentioned, namely “Peter-Rock” the proper noun. And as I stated earlier ALL the pronouns are in question 2-7 “you” are in relation to this just discussed.

And it makes my case if you read past the first sentence. I’ve never denied that Christ uses “tibi” instead of “vos” for most of the passage. That being said, it doesn’t have anything to do with the issue of the “Petrus” and “hanc petram.” Orthodox all acknowledge that Peter received his apostolic powers first. Furthermore, the determined state is not referential to anything. It is simply a form of a noun. It does not have to refer back to another noun.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My points are obvious.

I don’t see where you have any points again but assumption and certainly doesn’t address anything I’m discussing. All assumption.

there is not a single Aramaic manuscript or even a fragment of one that predates the Greek gospels. Additionally all supposed references to an Aramaic original are vague and do not even clearly indicate a text written in another language.

Wrong and wrong both sentences. All are like dating.

“The Khabouris Manuscript (11th century Aramaic Peshitta NT manuscript) is a copy of a Second Century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD. Aramaic and Hebrew scribes usually annotate their copy with a notation that identifies the source document they copied. The annotation is called a “colophon”. The colophon in the Khabouris Codex identifies its SOURCE as a document that existed about 165 CE.”

Arguments survive on merits, not numbers.

And both have merit thus the only argument for you was numbers “General belief” as your article states is a numbers argument. All argue different points and have various theories which culminates in “general belief” so my point stands.

Although its original grammatical function seems to have been to mark definiteness, it is used already in Imperial Aramaic to mark all important nouns, even if they should be considered technically indefinite. This practice developed to the extent that the absolute state became extraordinarily rare in later varieties of Aramaic.

This isn’t at odds with anything discussed

This means that your point that the second word for “rock” is emphatic is in all likelihood meaningless. The “emphatic case,” if we might call it that, replaced the normal “absolute case” by the time of Christ. This process in the change of the language began in 500 BC. Considering that Christ came 500 years later, it is safe to say that the emphatic point that you make is not necessarily clear. .

Which is nonsense and assumption, as the scholars who translated and all four agree and in fact stated this. Making you not only at odds with my point but the four who translated. Your not debating my point but the actual point of the translation of context and translators. You have no point only a bad opinion.

Listen I’m all set with the conversation, I can’t see where you have any point what so ever. So have a nice day I have other things to do.

 

[GaryTaylor]

(κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω) In fact I would argue emphatic in Greek and also English. I fail to see a point, sorry.

 

[Rohzek]

Wrong and wrong both sentences. All are like dating.

“The Khabouris Manuscript (11th century Aramaic Peshitta NT manuscript) is a copy of a Second Century New Testament, which was written in approximately 165 AD. Aramaic and Hebrew scribes usually annotate their copy with a notation that identifies the source document they copied. The annotation is called a “colophon”. The colophon in the Khabouris Codex identifies its SOURCE as a document that existed about 165 CE.”

Matthew didn’t live untill 165 AD. He wrote the Gospel of Matthew long beforehand in Greek and died long beforehand.

And both have merit thus the only argument for you was numbers “General belief” as your article states is a numbers argument. All argue different points and have various theories which culminates in “general belief” so my point stands.

You’re comparing the general consensus of academic expertise on textual criticism and manuscript tradition with religious dogma. The former concerns empirical matters while the latter concerns metaphysical matters. That’s a ridiculous comparison.

This isn’t at odds with anything discussed

Which is nonsense and assumption, as the scholars who translated and all four agree and in fact stated this. Making you not only at odds with my point but the four who translated. Your not debating my point but the actual point of the translation of context and translators. You have no point only a bad opinion.

I don’t think you understand grammar very well. The four people translated that verse differently. You’re argument rests on the fact that the second “rock” is in the emphatic case, and therefore must mean that it refers to the first “rock” which is Peter. While it is emphatic in form, it is not necessarily emphatic in meaning. Even if it was truly emphatic in meaning instead of absolute, that is not necessarily true. Your confusing emphasis with referential or demonstratives. Furthermore, the emphatic case by the time of Christ is almost always used in the place of the absolute case in Aramaic, which can either be definite or indefinite.

Listen I’m all set with the conversation, I can’t see where you have any point what so ever. So have a nice day I have other things to do.

You don’t see the point because you don’t understand grammar.

(κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω) In fact I would argue emphatic in Greek and also English. I fail to see a point, sorry.

Arguing a grammar point on the basis of an English translation just goes to show that you seriously don’t grasp the fullness of the problem at hand. Emphasis does not imply reference. Gender case has more to do with reference than with anything else.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matthew didn’t live untill 165 AD. He wrote the Gospel of Matthew long beforehand in Greek and died long beforehand…

Matthew didn’t live till 165? Where did the fragments from 95 of Matthew come from? Not Matthew? However, as wrong as that is it has nothing to do with anything. Christ spoke Aramaic and its assumption to think anything was first translated in Greek. Thus my point to begin with as the rest of the translation extending still rests on the point on emphasis on the Aramaic in flash points. Which is why I think its important to view structure this way first.

You’re comparing the general consensus of academic expertise on textual criticism and manuscript tradition with religious dogma. The former concerns empirical matters while the latter concerns metaphysical matters. That’s a ridiculous comparison…

No you were talking “general belief” not I and right above parroting wiki pedia. Thus your second sentence is meaningless. To me the truth is the truth and only if one person knows it. Its not about the majority of general belief to me. All the rest that you injected above is meaningless as a result. You don’t like the further point I made and are dancing around it. Why not just stop rationalizing and now insisting I bought the point up, crazy.

I don’t think you understand grammar very well. The four people translated that verse differently. You’re argument rests on the fact that the second “rock” is in the emphatic case, and therefore must mean that it refers to the first “rock” which is Peter. While it is emphatic in form, it is not necessarily emphatic in meaning. Even if it was truly emphatic in meaning instead of absolute, that is not necessarily true. Your confusing emphasis with referential or demonstratives. Furthermore, the emphatic case by the time of Christ is almost always used in the place of the absolute case in Aramaic, which can either be definite or indefinite…

I’m sorry thats not what I’m talking about with one word- Cephas-emphatic thus I can see how you arrive at your wrong thinking. Christ was emphatically making a statement regarding- Cephas, which the structure demonstrates, however as does the Greek as I showed you and the English. There are many who believe just as I do and in all three cases.

You don’t see the point because you don’t understand grammar…

Its not hard to see how you arrive here from reading above.

Arguing a grammar point on the basis of an English translation just goes to show that you seriously don’t grasp the fullness of the problem at hand. Emphasis does not imply reference. Gender case has more to do with reference than with anything else.

Actually you don’t know that, you have reverse structure “assuming” greek was first. In fact your wrong on multiple counts above. All four translators translating slightly different has nothing to do with that all four agree with singular emphatic.

In other words again I don’t see a point, don’t you think we should move on as your point is not to make a point but to critique mine and wrongly on several levels. You have what point in relation? None

Your point is to discredit another point and for no good reason as seen right above. I think its time to move on as I suggested don’t you?

If you disagree then we should move on as I suggested.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Rohzek they didn’t differentiate between the singular and the plural the same way pre and post fifth century which I think is what your saying above in which case I agree. But thats not what Im talking about, the Greek imho, its assumed it takes the liberty to do so with plural understandings of “petra” and further in sequence English understandings today, thus fringe thinking etc. My issue exists with todays elaboration which is often plural in thinking not feminine-singular-emphatic. In fact nothing but feminine in some cases’s and not quite right understanding of that.

In the early Aramaic its telling since Cephas is used in both instances in structure indicating singular by structure, its emphatic because of the strong emphasis by Christ in the instance of “I WILL” and feminine because it is not so much a question of the “name” as of the “thing” which it refers to and indicates, i.e. the rock of faith which provided a solid foundation for the Church that was to be built upon it thus a rock of faith. However, as I said I also think there can be no separation of a person and his faith thus in my mind its an absolute connection of person and faith.

That said these Matthew 16:18 conversations that seem unavoidable usually result in grammar structure, which is why I think its a point to make and quickly moved on from. Its something to think about as another’s opinion is. I understand others think differently.