L
- Status
L
lhagan
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
I have hear this argument before but there is a flaw in the Greek translation theory.
Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic there is no such distinction so where did this come from?
It turns out that the Greek usage of the two terms in this way was a normal grammatical practice at the time.
I am not a language scholar so I don’t know the particulars so maybe someone else can clarify this point further.
M
Metaron
Guest
As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).
Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.
We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’)
So, the whole Protestant petra/petros arguement is, actually, void of any meaning.
Most Protestant scholars nowadays openly admit this, to their credit.
Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.
We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’)
So, the whole Protestant petra/petros arguement is, actually, void of any meaning.
Most Protestant scholars nowadays openly admit this, to their credit.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Roman Doctrine vs. the Bible
The “primacy of Peter” doctrine asserts that Jesus gave Peter, and Peter’s successors, authority to function as the sole custodians of true Christian teaching—and as Pope Benedict asserted, “This primacy is for all time” (ibid.). Supporters of this doctrine point to one key passage of scripture, in which Jesus said, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matthew 16:18–19).
First-century Koine Greek made no such distinction, except in poetry. If Christ had wished to refer to Peter as "little rock," the **correct translation **would have been from the Aramaic word “kevna” (which Christ did not use) to the Greek “lithos,” not “petros”.
So the argument that petros and Peter being the **little rock **is false interpretation. The context of **Matthew Gospel **is has Aramaic influence.
Jesus we know spoke Aramaic. We know this because when Jesus cried out to God, the Father he cried out:
‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani’ which is Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha or massive rock. We have this name preserved 4 times in Galatians and 4 times in 1 Corinthians. The Aramaic for small stone or pebble is evna. In the Old Testament, “Rock” referred exclusively to God alone, and here we have Jesus telling one of his disciples that he is the Rock the second they meet. This is obviously a sign that Jesus has something great in mind for this apostle.
I had to say the website is weak in its argument in Greek linguistics for avoiding the other words like lithos.
The “primacy of Peter” doctrine asserts that Jesus gave Peter, and Peter’s successors, authority to function as the sole custodians of true Christian teaching—and as Pope Benedict asserted, “This primacy is for all time” (ibid.). Supporters of this doctrine point to one key passage of scripture, in which Jesus said, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matthew 16:18–19).
A study which I believe is completely erroneous by the website interpretation concerning the Papacy is false. In apostolic times, the word Petros and Petras were had the same meaning. If petros means small stone the proper Greek word would be lithos.
First-century Koine Greek made no such distinction, except in poetry. If Christ had wished to refer to Peter as "little rock," the **correct translation **would have been from the Aramaic word “kevna” (which Christ did not use) to the Greek “lithos,” not “petros”.
So the argument that petros and Peter being the **little rock **is false interpretation. The context of **Matthew Gospel **is has Aramaic influence.
Jesus we know spoke Aramaic. We know this because when Jesus cried out to God, the Father he cried out:
‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani’ which is Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha or massive rock. We have this name preserved 4 times in Galatians and 4 times in 1 Corinthians. The Aramaic for small stone or pebble is evna. In the Old Testament, “Rock” referred exclusively to God alone, and here we have Jesus telling one of his disciples that he is the Rock the second they meet. This is obviously a sign that Jesus has something great in mind for this apostle.
I had to say the website is weak in its argument in Greek linguistics for avoiding the other words like lithos.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It is partly true but a lot of the conclusion of this interpretation is rather misleading.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus indeed build his Church upon Simon Peter. In Matthew 18:18, he gave the same authority to the Apostle. However, there are other Biblical passages that Peter was the Head of the Apostle after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. It is interesting to note that in Matthew 16:19, Peter is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not the other Apostles. Peter is being told that God, Father has revealed him to be the Rock whom Jesus will built upon.
In Matthew 17:24-25, the tax collector approach Peter as Jesus’ representative. Jesus pays half the shekel with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter in Matthew 17:26-27. In Matthew 19:27, Peter spoke in behalf of the Apostle to Jesus that they have left everything to follow him.
In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus prayed for Peter alone that his faith will not fail. In John 21:15-17, Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles. Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course. Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel. Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray. Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
The Eastern Orthodox in Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commision made a joint Declaration that Peter had an important role and that the Papal Primacy had an important role. They note Peter as protos of the Apostle. The first. The disagreement lies on how much authority the Pope has.
M
Metaron
Guest
As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).
The only reason Peter is called Petros instead of petra is because Petros is masculine, because Peter in a male, and certainly would not be referred to in female!
Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.
But all this Greek arguementation is irrelevent; we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’)
So, the whole Protestant petra/petros arguement is, actually, void of any meaning.
Most Protestant scholars nowadays openly admit this, to their credit.
The only reason Peter is called Petros instead of petra is because Petros is masculine, because Peter in a male, and certainly would not be referred to in female!
Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.
But all this Greek arguementation is irrelevent; we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’)
So, the whole Protestant petra/petros arguement is, actually, void of any meaning.
Most Protestant scholars nowadays openly admit this, to their credit.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Which Catholic theologians? There is plenty of historical evidence to prove that Peter was in church. I clear showed Scripture Support that Peter was the one who settle in the Book of Acts in the Council of Jerusalem. He is the first to call for the successor of Judas, the first to speak before the Elders of the Jewish Temple, and so forth. So there plenty of evidence that the Peter was the one in charge after Jesus’ ascension.
Another false dichtomy.
In 1 Peter 5:13, . First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
While indeed Christians were urged to look toward Jerusalem was the mere fact that Peter resided there since the beginning of the Christian Church. He later move to Antioch and later settle in Rome.
Historical evidence show that Peter was in Rome. His tomb in under St. Peter’s Basilicia.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
About 34 AD ( Acts 2:41), we have an early mention of Peter. Some days later, in Acts 5:19, Peter is freed from prison by an angel. He spends four years in Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). St. Paul arrived at the beginning of Peter’s fourth year (Acts 9:27-28). In the same year Peter (Acts 9:32) went to Joppe, raised Tabitha, and had the linen vision (Acts 10:11-12). After a few days he went to Caesarea (to visit Cornelius - Acts 10:23). He returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:18) for a short time. Then he went to Antioch in Syria (as did Barnabas). This is attested to by Anacletus (Ep. iii), Marcellus (Ep. iii), St. Innocent I (Ep. xiv), St. Damasus in the Pontifical Book, St. Jerome in the “De Viris Illustribus” etc.
Peter’s episcopacy in Antioch lasted seven years (St. Leo, Sermon on Sts. Peter and Paul). Eleven years after the Ascension (the second year of Claudius), Peter went to Rome, first visiting Jerusalem (Acts 12, where he is thrown in prison, then rescued by an angel). The Roman Martyrology records the converts he sent to various parts, e.g. to Sicliy he sent Pancras, Marcian, and Berillus; to Verona he sent Exuperius, etc.
In the seventh year of his Roman pontificate, Claudius expelled all the Jews (and the Christians, who were regarded as a Jewish sect) from Rome. St. Peter returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas came for him over the dispute at Antioch (Acts 15:8). This Council took place in the 10th year of Claudius.
(Paul was converted the year after the Ascension, and went to see Peter in Jerualem in the third year of his conversion (Gal. 1:18); fourteen years later he went again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) and attended the Council (Acts 15). So there were eighteen years from the Crucifixion to the Council of Jerusalem, which would be the tenth year of Claudius’ reign.)
Claudius died after a reign of thirteen years, and his four-year edict of expulsion against the Jews died with him. It was during this four-year spell that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Nero succeeded, and Christians began returning to Rome (including Aquila and Priscilla). Peter returned to Rome in the first year of Nero’s reign. Two years later Paul joined Peter in Rome as a prisoner. (So how come Paul found the Jews in Rome knew the Christian religiononly by report, if Peter had been there? The solution is that the Jews who had been banished did not return.)
Two years later (fourth year of Nero’s reign), Paul, now set free, spent some time in Rome, then left for Spain.
In the tenth year of Nero (22nd year of Peter’s pontificate, 64 AD), Rome was set on fire. Nero blamed the Chrisatians and began a persecution against them the following year.
In the twelfth year of Nero (68 AD), Peter, who had been absent for a while, came back to Rome to revive the Church. In this year Peter wrote his second Epistle, in which he foretells his own death (1:14). Nero cast Peter and Paul into the Mamertine prison for nine months. From here Paul wrote his Second Letter to Timothy, requesting he come to Rome to witness his (Paul’s) martyrdom. It was at this tme that Process and Martinian were converted, alomg with 47 others. In 68-69 AD, in the 25th year of Peter’s pontificate in Rome, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.
This simple sketch should explain any difficulties which arise, e.g., how Peter could have been seven years at Antioch and twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, and yet be in Jerusalem in the 4th, 11th and 18th year after Our Lord’s Ascension, as inferred from the Epistle to the Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles
Peter’s episcopacy in Antioch lasted seven years (St. Leo, Sermon on Sts. Peter and Paul). Eleven years after the Ascension (the second year of Claudius), Peter went to Rome, first visiting Jerusalem (Acts 12, where he is thrown in prison, then rescued by an angel). The Roman Martyrology records the converts he sent to various parts, e.g. to Sicliy he sent Pancras, Marcian, and Berillus; to Verona he sent Exuperius, etc.
In the seventh year of his Roman pontificate, Claudius expelled all the Jews (and the Christians, who were regarded as a Jewish sect) from Rome. St. Peter returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas came for him over the dispute at Antioch (Acts 15:8). This Council took place in the 10th year of Claudius.
(Paul was converted the year after the Ascension, and went to see Peter in Jerualem in the third year of his conversion (Gal. 1:18); fourteen years later he went again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) and attended the Council (Acts 15). So there were eighteen years from the Crucifixion to the Council of Jerusalem, which would be the tenth year of Claudius’ reign.)
Claudius died after a reign of thirteen years, and his four-year edict of expulsion against the Jews died with him. It was during this four-year spell that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Nero succeeded, and Christians began returning to Rome (including Aquila and Priscilla). Peter returned to Rome in the first year of Nero’s reign. Two years later Paul joined Peter in Rome as a prisoner. (So how come Paul found the Jews in Rome knew the Christian religiononly by report, if Peter had been there? The solution is that the Jews who had been banished did not return.)
Two years later (fourth year of Nero’s reign), Paul, now set free, spent some time in Rome, then left for Spain.
In the tenth year of Nero (22nd year of Peter’s pontificate, 64 AD), Rome was set on fire. Nero blamed the Chrisatians and began a persecution against them the following year.
In the twelfth year of Nero (68 AD), Peter, who had been absent for a while, came back to Rome to revive the Church. In this year Peter wrote his second Epistle, in which he foretells his own death (1:14). Nero cast Peter and Paul into the Mamertine prison for nine months. From here Paul wrote his Second Letter to Timothy, requesting he come to Rome to witness his (Paul’s) martyrdom. It was at this tme that Process and Martinian were converted, alomg with 47 others. In 68-69 AD, in the 25th year of Peter’s pontificate in Rome, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.
This simple sketch should explain any difficulties which arise, e.g., how Peter could have been seven years at Antioch and twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, and yet be in Jerusalem in the 4th, 11th and 18th year after Our Lord’s Ascension, as inferred from the Epistle to the Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I agree with you that Jesus, his mother Mary and his disciples were Jews and they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, they never knew Greek or Latin; this proves that any Word of Revelation that Jesus received must be in Hebrew or Aramaic , which has been lost in original and what we have is only a translation or more accurately a translation of a translation. This necessaitates that the research for the lost Word of Revelation from GodAllahYHWH should continue.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I think unless one has original words of Jesus in the origianl language he spoke or the original Word of Revelation which GodAllahYHWH such important passages cannot be understood correctly. What you get out of it is only controversy and the more one thinks the more one gets bitter with the views of the others.
The solution is to find the original words/scriptures or rely on the latest Word of Revelation on the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908.
Thanks
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
- Status