Helping me showing the Truth

[GandalfTheWhite]

On one site I got into a discussion with a Protestant after he claimed that the Catholic Church was created about 300 AD. I explained it wasn’t - it was there from the beggining - which of course started the “What is Catholic Church” debate. Basically he believes that Catholic Church was founded by Jesus on Jesus and that protestants are part of it since there is nothing like apostolic succession. I linked him to this site as I think it quite nicely explains why this is wrong. This is how he answered. Now, I’m not that well versed in apologetics to be able to easily refute everything he says and so I though that you might help me. Could you please tell me how to answer there individual points? Thank you very much!

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 � Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

Yes, Simon Peter is an apostle, one of the twelve disciples �raised� to that position by Jesus. But is he any greater than the other apostles? Nothing here suggests that. Indeed, in the very next verse, Jesus gives another name to James and John.
So, what do we have here? Jesus changed / gave another name to Simon. Yep. But that is all that we get from these passages.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people’s names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

And how many of them were fundamental pieces that God�s people were built on, starts of apostolic progressions, or the like? How many were important people, but merely that - workers in God�s kingdom?

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning.

Unfortunately, that is not the �argument�, and to suggest that it is, as the website does, is to prop up a pretty poor strawman.
Lets look through those verses, knowing that “Peter” in Hebrew is “Kephas”.

• 2 Sam. 22:2-3: The word here is “Sela”, meaning ‘a craggy rock, literally or figuratively, a fortress’. Quite different to “Kephas”.
• 2 Sam. 22:32: The word here is “tsur tsur”, which means ‘a cliff’ or ‘rock or boulder, a refuge’. Again, different.
• 2 Sam. 22:47: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• 2 Sam. 23:3: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 18:2: Again it is “sela”.
• Psalm 18:31: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 18:46: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 19:4: I cannot even find a word to translate as ‘rock’ in this verse!
• Psalm 28:1: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 42:9: Again it is “sela”.
• Psalm 62:2: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 62:6: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 62:7: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 89:26: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 94:22: Again it is “tsur tsur”.
• Psalm 144:1-2: Again, the word ‘rock’ does not appear here. However, another word for ‘fortress’ does, which goes with all the uses above.

So, we see two things from the above. First, the term ‘rock’ is used to mean a fortress, a place of safety, a refuge. Quite different from “kephas”. Second, “Kephas” is only used for Simon.

This, of course, is not true. For example:

As this is in reference to a RC strawman, I will not argue against it

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church.

The Corinthian’s verse talks about Jesus being the only way. Only through Jesus may we approach God, he is the only way. Without him, there is no way. And we can not do work for God, unless we work on the foundation of Jesus.
Ephesians talks about the body of Christ - that is the church. Its foundations, its beginnings, were the first followers of Jesus, and the first people he chose to teach. Note that even in this verse, Jesus is still the cornerstone, the most important part of the foundation.
So, not only are the verses not contradicting each other, as both have Jesus as the foundation, but they are talking about different things!

To be continued…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock.

…and you cannot see a difference here? Jesus is most definitely “The Shepherd”, and his apostles are not “The Shepherd”. Jesus is not “a shepherd”, and his apostles are. There is a fundamental difference between “the Shepherd” and “shepherds”. No, these are two different terms used to describe two very different roles.

These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

I agree with the first sentence. The second is simply wrong. The “rock” that God is, and that Jesus called Simon, are very different. Just because they translate to the same thing in our language does not mean that they should be assumed to mean the same thing!

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

There are a number of fundamental flaws here. Right from the start, the article has equated the two ‘rocks’, when this is simply not the case.

First, whenever Peter is referred to in this passage, it is in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person (verse 18). Moreover, “Peter” (petros) is a masculine singular term and rock" (petra) is a feminine singular term. Hence, they do not have the same reference. What is more, the same authority Jesus gave to Peter (Matthew 16:18) is later given to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18). So Peter is not unique.

And, if that were not enough, look at what they were talking about. It is not Peter that is the subject of discussion, the purpose of the passage is not the ‘blessing of Peter’, but it is what Peter said that caused Jesus to bless him! Jesus is the Christ (v16), and on that foundation, shall Jesus build his church. Remember those passages above? 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is the foundation. Eph. 2:20 - The apostles are the foundation, with Jesus as the cornerstone (most vital part). No, this is not talking about Peter being the foundation - rather, it is once again saying that Jesus is the foundation. Peter’s words are correct, and on that revelation, God’s church will be built.
Look what happens next (v20)! Jesus tells them not to tell anyone that he is the Christ! He is still talking about it, it is the main issue and purpose of this section!

And, if you still wish to grasp at straws and claim that Peter is meant to be ‘the rock’, go forward a few more verses and see what Jesus calls him next. V23, to be precise. Here, after Peter is trying to tell Jesus what to do, Jesus calls Peter Satan, and tells him he is a hindrance to him!! Not something/someone you really want for a foundation, hey?

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don�t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

This simply shows a lack of understanding of Greek. Petros and Petra both do mean the same thing, yes, but one is masculine, and the other is feminine. In the same way that we can judge someone to be talking about two persons if they say “he” and “she” in the same sentence, so it is here. If I said “There is Bob, isn’t it warm today?” would I be saying that you are warm, or some other thing (possibly the temperature?) is warm?

To be continued…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon “Bar-Jona.” The use of “Bar-Jona” proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Bar” means son, and “Jonah” means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

No issues with Jesus speaking Aramaic. However, “Bar-Jona” simply means “man”. Either that his father’s name was ‘john’, or that he was an Israelite.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Unfortunately, the Greek simply does not agree with the author here. The term is clearly pointing to something that is not Peter.

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Another strawman. Calling Simon “Petros” is not diminishing. Calling Simon “sela” or “tsur tsur” would be quite crazy, and possibly seen as blasphemous…

Matt. 16:18-19 � to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter�s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter�s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus� whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Nope, the verses do not show that

They start talking about who Jesus is,
then Peter states who Jesus is,
then Jesus affirms it (and congratulates him), telling him that God revealed this to him,
then Jesus says that this important revelation will be the foundation of the church,
then Jesus talks about the ‘keys to heaven’,
then Jesus tells the disciples not to speak of this revelation,
then Jesus explains further about who he is, and what will happen to him because of this revelation,
then Peter tries to convince Jesus otherwise,
then Jesus rebukes Peter, even going as far as to call him Satan,
then Jesus continues to talk about himself, and what is to come.

The whole focus is on Jesus, as it should be, and Peter just happens to be the one to answer the question (a good thing), but, being Peter, he also is the one to completely stuff it up (as often happens).

Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means “grain of sand.” If Simon’s name meant “grain of sand,” it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from “grain of sand” to “pebble.”

strawman.

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

although this is mostly just thoughts, I will respond and point out that the scene happens on the way to Caesarea Philippi, not when they are there.

Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

I am sorry, but this is total bullocks. Jesus is the foundation that his church is built on. Not only that, but Simon never lost that name, so the above claim simply makes no sense! No, this is really clutching at straws…wet, floppy ones.

To be continued…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation.

No, no, no! The rock that the church is built on is Jesus! He is the capstone, he is the cornerstone, he is the solid foundation!! There is nothing in these verses that suggests otherwise!

Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth.

An incorrect assumption, leading to an incorrect conclusion.

It was only after the truth of who Jesus was had been revealed to the disciples that Jesus started to talk of his death and departure. This is because the disciples would have understood it even less than they did after the revelation!

John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college.

Again, incorrect assumptions before lead the author to miss the point of the passage. Three times does Jesus ask Peter if he loves him…why is this? It is because, three times, Peter had denied even knowing Jesus, so as to save his own hide! Jesus now shows his forgiveness for the denying Peter had done, as well as the broken promise Peter had made. “More than these?” Peter had claimed to love Jesus more than the other disciples, but none of the others (negating Judas Iscariot) had treated Jesus so basely, had denied him three times. However, now Peter’s response is not “Yes, I love you more than they do”, as he has seen himself slip and fall. Now, instead, Peter simply says “You know I love you”. Skipping around Jesus’ question.

Also note that the words for ‘love’ differ. Jesus asks “Peter, do you love me ardently and supremely?” (love = agapao), Peter answers “Lord, I do feel an affection for you, a do esteem you, but I dare not say more at preset” (love = phileo).
The third time, Jesus changes his question to “do you phileo me?”

So, Jesus singles Peter out, yes. But why? Because Peter has singled himself out - by his claims, and by his failure to live up to those claims. Jesus now tries to repair the damage done to Peter by himself, so that he may be fit to be an apostle again.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus� representative.

Clearly this is not the case, as caring and feeding the ‘flock’ is something required of anyone who is in a position of leadership. The point of telling Peter is that it is not enough to simply love God, we must care for each other too.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Why does Jesus single out Peter? Hrmm, have we forgotten that whole thrice-denying thing?
Satan had already grabbed one disciple - Judas - and is still desiring all of them. Peter is prayed for in particular because Jesus knows what is coming - Jesus knows that Peter will fail him three times. But he tells Peter that even after this, come back and strengthen the others. Were the others not to strengthen one another? No! They should all strengthen each other! However, after denying Jesus three times, Peter would probably feel like he had no right to strengthen the others. Jesus is telling him to still do it.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter’s authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus� sheep and whose faith will not fail.

No one, eh? Not even, oh, say, Paul?? See Galatians 2:11.
This has to be a deliberate oversight by the writer, either that, or his biblical knowledge is clearly lacking.

To be continued…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

So, in conclusion, what do we have?

The “rock” that Simon was renamed is not the same, in word or meaning, as the “rock” from the Old Testament, used solely for God. God is our fortress, our refuge. Simon is just Peter.
The entire passage of Matthew 16 is talking about Jesus, who he is, and what he has to do. Peter is congratulated as the one who answers the question, but is also very sternly rebuked for his next words.
Jesus is the foundation. It is Jesus that the church is built on - even when Ephesians mentions the apostles (all of them, mind you), it still whacks Jesus there as the cornerstone.
Jesus did not single Peter out to lead the other apostles, but rather to help Peter cope with his own failings. Peter kept saying the wrong things, and not saying the right things. He had his shining moments, but he also had his share of having his foot in his mouth.
Oh, and Peter was married. (Matthew 8:14)

Clearly, Peter is not the rock on which the church is built - that belongs to Jesus, and Jesus alone.

The End

I’m sorry it’s so long. I simply copied it and pasted here. I hope to find the answers for myself and him!

God bless!
Gandalf

 

[DesertBrother]

On one site I got into a discussion with a Protestant after he claimed that the Catholic Church was created about 300 AD. I explained it wasn’t - it was there from the beggining - which of course started the “What is Catholic Church” debate. Basically he believes that Catholic Church was founded by Jesus on Jesus and that protestants are part of it since there is nothing like apostolic succession. I linked him to this site as I think it quite nicely explains why this is wrong. This is how he answered. Now, I’m not that well versed in apologetics to be able to easily refute everything he says and so I though that you might help me. Could you please tell me how to answer there individual points? Thank you very much!

.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 ? Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

Yes, Simon Peter is an apostle, one of the twelve disciples ?raised? to that position by Jesus. But is he any greater than the other apostles? Nothing here suggests that. Indeed, in the very next verse, Jesus gives another name to James and John.
So, what do we have here? Jesus changed / gave another name to Simon. Yep. But that is all that we get from these passages.

I’d say the fact that Jesus first says to Peter that he is “blessed” because the Father revealed to Him who Jesus was. Then immediately names Peter “rock” and in the very same sentence, says He will build His Church upon this “rock” is irrefutable IMO. It’s utterly ridculous to dig alternate meanings out of that statement, especially when in the following verse Jesus says He will give him the keys to the Kingdom and whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven, etc…

Peter so obviously held a position of primacy among the Apostles. His name is always listed first whenever the Apostles are mentioned. Sometimes it’s just “Peter and the eleven”, or Peter and the Apostles. Peters name is mentioned more often than all the rest combined.

Jesus commands Peter to feed his sheep: John 21:15-17

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

These are good point DesertBrother! It is also pretty much obvious from the history of the Church. To say that there is no apostolic succession is to claim that men more than 1500 years after Christ can know more about the intentions of the Lord than those who lived at (and around) the times of Christ. This is also one of the reasons why I find the notion of “scripture only” flawed.

Now, is there a brave Catholic here that will be willing to address the points he brings up individually?

 

[FCEGM]

. . …Now, is there a brave Catholic here that will be willing to address the points he brings up individually?

Well, let’s look at what he had to say about this:

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter’s authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus? sheep and whose faith will not fail.

No one, eh? Not even, oh, say, Paul?? See Galatians 2:11.
This has to be a deliberate oversight by the writer, either that, or his biblical knowledge is clearly lacking.

How is St. Paul questioning St. Peter’s authority? He is questioning Peter’s attempt to appease the Jewish Christians, much as Paul himself did on several occasions, yet this episode went too far since it seriously threatened the “oneness” of the Church. That’s why Paul was correct, and Peter had to be set straight - even as numerous Popes had to be corrected in their behavior by Saints throughout the ages. Yet Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here.

What did St. Peter teach that was wrong? The answer is: Nothing. So, there is a failure on the part of your questioner to see the full picture as it applied to St. Peter’s ministry of leadership.

The incident mentioned in Galatians is brought up ad nauseum supposedly to “prove” that St. Peter had no special authority. But, then, why does St. Paul boast about it? If St. Peter had no special authority, then there would be no reason for St. Paul to boast, seeing that, in Galatians 2, St. Paul is defending his right to be called an Apostle. Furthermore, your questioner is missing the Jewish pun St. Paul is employing here. Read all of chapters one and two of Galatians. There St. Paul does something rather strange, he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. Why? Why use both versions of Peter’s name? The name “Kephas” is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” ("Rock) - the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Koine Greek “Kephas” implies headship (“kephale” = “head”). So, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Koine Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8). St. Paul’s meaning is strikingly clear.

If you haven’t already done so, read this article by John Pacheco in the April 2005 edition of THIS ROCK magazine, regarding the location of the naming of St. Peter.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea3.asp

Also, this article addresses a lot of the issues regarding Peter and his primacy that non-Catholics bring up:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Wow, nice FCEGM. Do you mind if I you what you wrote word by word?

Anyone else is willing to take and explain the invalidity of the other ‘accusations’?

 

[FCEGM]

Wow, nice FCEGM. Do you mind if I you what you wrote word by word?

Anyone else is willing to take and explain the invalidity of the other ‘accusations’?

Quote away, Gandalf.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I’m a bit confused by this sentence: “What is more, the same authority Jesus gave to Peter (Matthew 16:18) is later given to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18). So Peter is not unique.”

What can I say to this?

 

[FCEGM]

I’m a bit confused by this sentence: “What is more, the same authority Jesus gave to Peter (Matthew 16:18) is later given to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18). So Peter is not unique.”

What can I say to this?

Gandalf, Mark Bonocore, a Catholic apologist, addresses this here:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

Primacy and Authority of Peter

Yet, let’s take this quote from Lumen Gentium line-by-line:

“Just as the role that the Lord gave individually to Peter, first among the apostles, was permanent and meant to be transmitted to his successors…”

Okay. What “role” did Christ give “individually” to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of “Rock,” “Key-bearer,” and the authority to “bind and loosen.” Also, in Luke 22:31-32, the Lord individually imparts to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (i.e. the other Apostles). Also, in John 21:15-19, the Lord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

And so, here’s a simple question: Are any of these things exclusive to the full measure of Peter’s Apostolic office? Answer: No, they are not. And why? Because, Peter, like the other eleven, were made Apostles WAY BACK in Matthew 10:1-8, which was LONG before Peter was individually granted any of these other duties or responsibilities. And, speaking of Matthew 10 here, verses 7-8 tell us what the office of an Apostle is: It is a Christ-appointed office to proclaim the Gospel – to deliver the fullness of new revelation to mankind. In this sense, and according to this Apostolic ministry, Peter was merely one of the Twelve and, as one of the Twelve, his Apostolic office was directed primarily toward to the Jews (Gal 2:7-9). Yet, as is clear from Scripture, the EPISCOPAL DIMENSION of Peter’s Apostolic office carried other, additional responsibilities, which were given to him individually by Christ. And these responsibilities concerned maintaining the entire flock (the universal Church) in unity and orthodoxy. And this is exactly what we see Peter doing throughout the New Testament.

What’s more, focusing on John 21:15-19 for a moment, here Peter is unquestionably being commissioned by Christ, and given authority over the entire flock (“feed my lambs” / “tend my sheep”). . . .

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

An interesting question was raised in that debate and I cannot find a way to answer it.

I explained why the Greek Gospel uses …Petros…petra…]. I said that Simon couldn’t have been given a name Petra because -a is a feminine ending in Greek and it would be like calling him ‘Rockita’. It would be very inappropriate thing to do. Now, the I was given a question: If he coudn’t use …Petra…petra…], why didn’t he use …Petros…petros…] so the endings would stay the same and it would be clear for everyone?

So, why could the Gospel of Matthew say: You are Petros and on this petros I build will build my church? What’s wrong with petros?

 

[FCEGM]

. . .So, why could the Gospel of Matthew say: You are Petros and on this petros I build will build my church? What’s wrong with petros?

“Thou are little rock, and on this little rock I will build my church.”??? I don’t think so. Remember the location of the event, Gandalf.

Also, the article by Mark Bonocore at the site I recommended gives his e-mail address; you would find him a great help when particular questions arise.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

“Thou are little rock, and on this little rock I will build my church.”??? I don’t think so.

Well Petros isn’t a small rock or a pebble as far or I know (or is it?).

Thank you for answering the question though. I will contact the person.

 

[FCEGM]

Well Petros isn’t a small rock or a pebble as far or I know (or is it?)

Yes, Gandalf, that’s why some Protestants try to make a lot of hay out of the supposed distinction between petra and petros:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811chap.asp

Thank you for answering the question though. I will contact the person

Excellent! You will find him extremely helpful.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Indeed - I did find it very helpful. THis is the answer I got:

Hi, Tomas. Thanks for writing. Very simply, the reason Matt 16:18 does not read “petros -pertros” is because the actual word for “rock” in Greek is “petra” --a feminine noun. It would have been very strange in Koinic Greek (the Greek of the Bible) to use the mansculine form “petros” to refer to an actual rock, since rock was a feminine word. The author of Matt 16 wants to make it clear to his early Christian readers that Jesus is comparing Peter (whom they knew as “Petros”) to an actual rock (“petra”). If he did not use the normal, feminine word “petra” ("…and upon this rock …"), then the meaning of Matt 16 would have been obscured. To the early Greek speaking Christians, it would have sounded like this: “…you are Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my Church.” See the difficulty? It would not be illustrating the meaning of the name “Peter” at all. For 1st Century Greek-speakers, “petra” was the word for rock. “Petros” (“Peter”) was merely a name derived from “petra.” Greeks at this time only used the masculine form “petros” when they were speaking in an adjectival sense and applying it to something mansculine that
was “made of rock” (e.g. a rock wall). So, if the author of Matt 16 wanted to equate Peter with an actual rock, he could only do it by using the feminine form (“petra”).

Now, the Protestant “petros-petra” argument is easily refuted by the fact that Jesus Himself simply did not speak Greek, but Aramaic, and Scripture itself clearly preserves the Aramaic form of Peter’s name --the name that Jesus actually called Peter, which was (in Aramaic) “Kepha.” A Greek transliteration of this original, Aramaic name (Kephas …sometimes written “Cephas”) appears many times in Scripture: John 1:42, 1 Corinth 1:12, 1 Corinth 3:22, 1 Corinth 9:5, 1 Corinth 15:5, Gal 1:18, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:11, Gal 2:14. And, what simply cannot be denied is that “Kepha” in Aramaic means a big, whomping “rock.” It has no other meaning in Aramaic. In fact, there is a word for “little stone” in Aramaic, and that word is “evna.” But, Peter is never called “Evna,” or “evnas,” or anything like that. Rather, he is called “Kepha” (rendered as “Kephas” in the Greek). And, unlike the Greek word for rock, “Kepha” in Aramaic is neither masculine nor feminine, but neuter; and what this means is that its form does not change in a sentence. And so, when we translate Matt 16:18 into Aramaic, what it says is:

“…you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

There is no change. Thus, if we look at what Jesus REALLY SAID, it becomes clear that Jesus is calling Peter “rock” and then saying that he will build His Church upon this very same rock of Peter. There is simply no way for a Protestant to avoid this argument, which is why every reputable Protestant
scholar in the world no longer uses the “petros-petra” argument, but admits that Peter himself is the rock of Matt 16:18. Only uneducated fundamentalists still use the old argument.

Hope that helps

God bless

Mark Bonocore

 

[FCEGM]

Indeed - I did find it very helpful. THis is the answer I got [etc.]:

 

[Jennifer123]

Sorry I can’t help you with specific arguments but I find it interesting that the particular Protestant acknowledges writings from 300 AD at least w/ regards to the Catholic Church supposedly being founded, but apparently nothing before then? What about writing from ECF like Ignatius of Antioch who was clear about Catholic things like Eucharist and Apostolic Succession?

 

[adam_in_ohio]

The reason is “Petros” (Peter) is a masculine noun, and “Petra”(rock) is a feminine noun. You can’t use a feminine noun for a man’s name.
But what protestants don’t take into account is that Jesus did not speak to his disciples in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic!!! At that time, Aramaic was the common language of Palestine.
The Aramaic word for rock is “kepha”. “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock. So Jesus said “you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church” or “you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church”.