help please

[coolduude]

I feel like Ive refuted most of the arguments in earlier posts.
Also, most of those arguments seem to rely very heavily on the assumption that Peter is the rock and that the church is the Catholic Church, not a church of believers.
EDIT: this is a pretty good article why Peter is NOT the rock:
carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

Please watch this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=wZEALztUKQI

It’s only one part, and it’s very good. Please watch it

By the way, I looked at that article for all of 2 seconds and its chalk-full of errors.

Here’s a good refutation:
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. 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. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (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).

 

[Milesius]

And Kepha = Cephas

Now see John 1:42

“And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”

I say again Christ did not call him the Greek names Christ did not speak in Greek to Peter, and the original Gospel of Matthew also was nto written in Greek it was written in Aramaic. The true meaning of the verse therefore must be possible in the original Aramaic.

Rejecting that Peter is the rock based on somethign which was present in the Greek that could never have been present in the original Aramaic due to the lack of gender specific words in Aramaic should not be a convincing argument to anyone.

 

[bibleguy180]

And Kepha = Cephas

Now see John 1:42

“And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”

I say again Christ did not call him the Greek names Christ did not speak in Greek to Peter, and the original Gospel of Matthew also was nto written in Greek it was written in Aramaic. The true meaning of the verse therefore must be possible in the original Aramaic.

Rejecting that Peter is the rock based on somethign which was present in the Greek that could never have been present in the original Aramaic due to the lack of gender specific words in Aramaic should not be a convincing argument to anyone.

Yeah… can you show me the aramaic text?

 

[coolduude]

Yeah… can you show me the aramaic text?

I tried looking, but there isn’t any NT currently written in Aramaic. This is the best I could do:

v-a.com/bible/matthew.html

This translation of the Testament of Matthew from the original Ancient Aramaic Texts of the Ancient Church of the East Bible is dedicated to my mother Margaret.

Matthew 16:18 according to this translation:

Matthew:

I am also telling you that you are the Rock [Peter] and on this rock I am building my Church, and the doors of sheol cannot draw* it in.

 

[bibleguy180]

I tried looking, but there isn’t any NT currently written in Aramaic. This is the best I could do:

v-a.com/bible/matthew.html

Matthew 16:18 according to this translation:

The Aramaic text is lost, it was a rhetorical question. Matthew himself probably translated it into Greek, so he showed the difference

 

[coolduude]

The Aramaic text is lost, it was a rhetorical question. Matthew himself probably translated it into Greek, so he showed the difference

I’m not seeing the objection, but perhaps that’s because it’s been some time since this was last discussed

 

[bibleguy180]

I’m not seeing the objection, but perhaps that’s because it’s been some time since this was last discussed

The objection is that your point that Aramaic doesn’t distinguish between genders is rubbish because

1. We don’t know for sure the gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic
2. Even if it was, it no longer exists, so your argument is based on something that doesn’t exist
3. Matthew translated it into Greek if it was written in Aramaic, he wouldn’t have specified gender if it was meant to signify the same thing, its like calling himself a girl

 

[coolduude]

1. We don’t know for sure the gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic

Yes we do:

According to Eusebius (Church History III.39.16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

(newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm)

2. Even if it was, it no longer exists, so your argument is based on something that doesn’t exist

This logic fails, because none of the original transcripts of the Bible remain. In other words, none of the original texts exist.

3. Matthew translated it into Greek if it was written in Aramaic, he wouldn’t have specified gender if it was meant to signify the same thing, its like calling himself a girl

Not seeing this… (sorry )

 

[bibleguy180]

Not seeing this… (sorry )

Alright, well in Geek its like you are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.
Why wouldn’t Matthew have just used petros both times, to avoid all confusion?
Why would he bother to use a different gender?
Another way to look at is like saying “You are an actor, and with this actress I will make my movie”

 

[coolduude]

Alright, well in Geek its like you are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.
Why wouldn’t Matthew have just used petros both times, to avoid all confusion?
Why would he bother to use a different gender?
Another way to look at is like saying “You are an actor, and with this actress I will make my movie”

I see!
Catholic Answers:

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

(catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp)

 

[bibleguy180]

I see!

(catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp)

I did not ever claim that Christ was the rock.
Also, Peter was certainly not a rock, he was a movable human being.
I don’t see how a Chuch could be built on a movable rock.
Even if Peter IS the rock, which hasn’t been proven to me, that does not mean his authority was to be handed down.

 

[coolduude]

I did not ever claim that Christ was the rock.
Also, Peter was certainly not a rock, he was a movable human being.
I don’t see how a Chuch could be built on a movable rock.
Even if Peter IS the rock, which hasn’t been proven to me, that does not mean his authority was to be handed down.

But my friend, you did claim Christ was the rock by inference. If Peter is not the rock, who is? Christ (that link from carm.org that you provided says as much).

For an explanation on the rock, please watch this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=wZEALztUKQI

It addresses all the objections you just raised

 

[bibleguy180]

But my friend, you did claim Christ was the rock by inference. If Peter is not the rock, who is? Christ (that link from carm.org that you provided says as much).

For an explanation on the rock, please watch this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=wZEALztUKQI

It addresses all the objections you just raised

The video didn’t answer any objections, it just made a bunch of claims. I don’t see how its a debate? (Forgive me if I’m wrong though, i had to watch it muted atm so i just read the stuff on the screen, I’ll watch it again when i can )

Also, I think it is much more likely that the rock is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the LOrd.

 

[AnneElliot]

Also, I think it is much more likely that the rock is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the LOrd.

Then why does Jesus say to Peter, “You are rock…” and not “Your confession of faith is the rock…”??

 

[bibleguy180]

Then why does Jesus say to Peter, “You are rock…” and not “Your confession of faith is the rock…”??

Well you can see that one of the words is used as a small movable stone (the one which refers to Peter) while the other refers to a huge, immovable chunk of rock

 

[coolduude]

The video didn’t answer any objections, it just made a bunch of claims. I don’t see how its a debate? (Forgive me if I’m wrong though, i had to watch it muted atm so i just read the stuff on the screen, I’ll watch it again when i can )

Also, I think it is much more likely that the rock is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the LOrd.

Yes, it is critical to watch it with sound. That would help a lot It was going to be a debate, but the other person never got back to SeptemberCatholic18.

So let’s see where we stand so far and how we can fix it, eh?

• You reject the Pope because of Matthew 16:18 correct?
• You reject the Marian dogmas for various reasons (mostly because they don’t make much sense). Correct?
• You reject the infallibility of the Pope

Am I missing anything? (no sarcasm intended)

Let’s try to pound these issues out one by one but I am warning you, you must go into this with an open heart. Deal?

Remember what Jesus says: “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free”.

 

[bibleguy180]

Yes, it is critical to watch it with sound. That would help a lot It was going to be a debate, but the other person never got back to SeptemberCatholic18.

So let’s see where we stand so far and how we can fix it, eh?

• You reject the Pope because of Matthew 16:18 correct?
• You reject the Marian dogmas for various reasons (mostly because they don’t make much sense). Correct?
• You reject the infallibility of the Pope

Am I missing anything? (no sarcasm intended)

Let’s try to pound these issues out one by one but I am warning you, you must go into this with an open heart. Deal?

Remember what Jesus says: “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free”.

Alright sounds good, I’m going to have to go to bed now though so I’ll come back tomorrow. I reject the pope because of Matthew 16:18, yes, but also because the Bible nnever says Peter should have a successor. (How can “all authority on heaven and earth” be given to more than one person?) I reject the Marian dogmas because they don’t make sense, are not biblical, and I very highly doubt that even if they are true, they have any bearing whatsoever on salvation. (alot of the stuff about Mary just doesn’t matter!)
And yes, I reject the infallibility of the pope, because it’s unbiblical.

P.S. I think you would do well to keep an open mind about things as well

 

[coolduude]

So it’s a deal we’ll start tomorrow if you want, or PM if that works better

Here’s addressing your P.S.-

I have kept an open mind; there was a point not long ago when I too doubted the Truth of the Catholic faith. However, through prayer, logic, and deep thought, I came to realize that the Catholic Chirch truly is the one, true, church. Hopefully you can come to see that some day soon as well

 

[Milesius]

Well you can see that one of the words is used as a small movable stone (the one which refers to Peter) while the other refers to a huge, immovable chunk of rock

The word used by Christ was the Aramaic Kepha so the distinction in the Greek language really is irrelevant.

AS already explained the reason for the difference is because the Greek for large rock (Petra) is a feminine word and so isn’t used to name a man.

Furthermore the words should be interpreted in the context of the conversation

“And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:16-19”

because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Note Peter is receiving direct revelations from the Father already, do any of the other Apostles receive direct revelation from the Father while Jesus is still among them?
**That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
**
**And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
**

These three passages all taken together in the same conversation one after the other make it clear that Peter is been given authority and only Peter.

I am not sure if I posted all this before but I will post it again rather than keep arguing over the same things read ALL the scriptures in their totality from what I could find that show Peter is given authority over the whole Church.

home.inreach.com/bstanley/prim.htm

 

[bibleguy180]

The word used by Christ was the Aramaic Kepha so the distinction in the Greek language really is irrelevant.

AS already explained the reason for the difference is because the Greek for large rock (Petra) is a feminine word and so isn’t used to name a man.

Furthermore the words should be interpreted in the context of the conversation

“And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:16-19”

because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Note Peter is receiving direct revelations from the Father already, do any of the other Apostles receive direct revelation from the Father while Jesus is still among them?
**That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
**
**And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
**

These three passages all taken together in the same conversation one after the other make it clear that Peter is been given authority and only Peter.

I am not sure if I posted all this before but I will post it again rather than keep arguing over the same things read ALL the scriptures in their totality from what I could find that show Peter is given authority over the whole Church.

home.inreach.com/bstanley/prim.htm

But we see that prior to this Jesus says “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but the Father who is in heaven.” We see that it is not Peter but God that made the statement, so again I will claim that Jesus was referring to the confession that He is Lord. I will again bring up that Peter’s faith was certainly not a rock.
Oh, and @cooldude, I see no reason to take this private, so that others can read and contribute as they wish, and who knows, maybe it will help out other people