How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[SCALCO]

I’m confused.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So, you believe Peter and the Apostles were given authority, it just did not pass on? Why do you think they were given authority in the first place?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=105278&
This should help you understand.

 

[Claudius]

Absolutely – and that form didn’t have liturgies, popes, many rituals, confession for the purpose of redeeming you of sin, prayers to Mary, etc.

I will assume (with Charity) that you are lying to us or are just stupid. Please let me know which one.

As I understand, the underlying Greek “kai”, is a generic conjunction, which can mean either “and” or “but”. It’s not as specific as our English conjunctions are. Thus, its meaning must be determined by surrounding context.

In NO dialect of the Greek language may you ever, EVER use kai to mean BUT. You just can not do it, EVER, AT ALL.

Kai means AND, EVEN, ALSO.

Kai…Kai means Both…And

Te…Kai mean Not only…BUT also

If you are refering to this I really hope you do not expect us to fall for it because you have been caught.

That it did. Then again, so did the hierarchy in Eastern Orthodoxy, which insists Rome is wrong on some things. Surely you’re not saying that something exists is proof that it’s legitimate, are you?

They don’t insist that Rome is wrong. You need to get your facts together and you also need to do more study about that the Byzantines believe and teach. The results of the meeting in Ravenna Italy I am sure you are aware of or you need to be and soon.

Actually, I’m not sure there’s a time when such hierarchy wasn’t challenged, except for in the earliest centuries of the church (at which time I believe the hierarchy as such did not exist).

If you think that the Heirarchy of the Church didn’t exist then you are basically telling us that you refuse to read any valid information or history and you are being very unreasonable in your assertions.

“Seems to make sense” is an appelation to emotion and personal opinion, rather than to sound reasoning.

History and facts, nuf said.

It makes sense to you for there to be a hierarchy precisely because that’s what you’re used to, and it guides the terms in which you think. To my mind, it makes sense for Christ to have not left this planet at all – he should have remained here with us, working miracles, preaching on Sundays, etc. But clearly our sense of what “makes sense” is not the same as what God chooses to do.

St. Ignatius of Antioch gives us a pretty clear description of the levels of clergy in the early Church as does the New Testament. I would refer you to his writtings in Greek but I am afriad that you will be seeing BUT in all the places where he wrote AND so I will look for a good English translation for you.

You could also look up Origen or Clement of Alexandria but really just about any Christian documents will do. Coptic Grammer is amazingly simple to learn, you could learn that langauge and read some Coptic to prove it to yourself if you like.

The authority was the holy spirit in the beginning, and should remain so to this day. Where does the authority come from? – God himself. How is this authority to be exercised? – By revelation to followers of Christ, as always.

That authority is with the clergy. Jesus says so.

This is a good point. Some people assume that disagreement with the RCC means we hold the RCC is completely of satan and that all Roman Catholics are not Christian.

Most protestants that I have had contact with believe that “all catholics are going to hell” and my usual response to them is that they are not Christians. I can justify this easily. I do not justify it by judging them by thier behavior, that would be too easy for them to overlook and be blinded. I simply point out that since Catholics are Christians in reality and since being baptized is entering into communion with Christianity, anyone who claims that Catholics are not Christians are in fact themselves not Christains because they have created a false idea of what Christianity is and entered into that falsehood not Christianity.

Thus far, very few have actually addressed the issues I raised previously regarding the petros/petra issue. Unfortunately, these have been covered with claims that are false (such as that Matthew 7 uses kepha, not shu’a, that kepha means an “unmovable rock”, or that “and” and “but” are two distinctly different things in Greek).

I see everyone here responding to you and you just blowing us off because you have pre decided that you are right and we are wrong. We are giving you the truth and you are ignoring it. I expect more. Petra and Petros are Synonymous in Koine Greek. Jesus used the word Kepa not Shu’Wa, but even still it would still make sense because Kepa and Shu’Wa are synonymous. Kepa does indeed mean unmovable rock. It is not expected that a normal human being can remove a Kepa, or even an elephant for that matter. Look up the word AVNA. Your asertion that Kai can mean BUT is completely wrong for any dialect of Greek at any time in the language history. That is besides the point because Jesus uses a word in Syriac that clearly point to Peter as the ROCK. Jesus says Kepa twice.

I was really hoping someone would take up the task of countering this with historical documents and logic, rather than just saying it’s useless to discuss. This just tells me that most of you can’t even be bothered to discuss a well-thought rational response to your claims. I sincerely hope some of you will change your minds on this, and choose to respond in detail.

Dude, you are at Catholic Answers. Sure I can go to the over side of the site and cut and paste, or I can go to St. Michaels media or go to the site run by Marty Barrack but you would accuse me of regurgitating the truth to you. I can show you all the research that I have done on my own but it would be mountianous and not very well organized since I mostly just live my faith in everyday reality. But even still, you would reject it because you need the Catholic Church to be wrong or you are faced with having to be intellectually honest and convert.

Jesus Says " I say, I to you, you are Kepa on which Kepa I will Build my Church gates of hell will not surround."

The words that Jesus uses here make it so very clear that I am surprised that you can’t see it plain as day. Jesus is using a singular you, the set a personal tone, he uses a relative that can only refer to Peter. The issue of Kai is moot since Jesus didn’t say that word, but even if he had said all of this in Greek it would still only be grammatically correct to assume the Catholic interpretation. If Jesus had been talking about the Rock face or about Faith in general he would have had to use a Different word to tell them “on which”. Either Jesus was speaking some sub dialect of Syriac that was like Ebonics or Creole or we have to go with the Catholic interpretation because it is the only one that makes any sense at all.

 

[Mach1Man]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

This exchange between Jesus and the Apostles is clearly saying the the statement by Peter “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is what the church would be built on.

 

[mercygate]

This exchange between Jesus and the Apostles is clearly saying the the statement by Peter “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is what the church would be built on.

No. That is not clear, as has been shown up thread.

Even if that were so, how would it separate Peter himself from Peter’s Confession? Can’t be done. In fact, the Catholic Church never does that. Even though Peter alone received the promise of the Keys, the Petrine ministry is never “wielded” as if it were something apart from faith in “the Son of the Living God.”

The Great Commission goes to the Eleven. The promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance “into all the truth” is only to the Eleven. The power to forgive and retain sins is given by the risen Lord only to the Apostles.

Apart from the grammatical headlock that makes Peter “the Rock” on which Christ will build HIS Church, all of the other New Testament testimony pointing to him as the centepiece of the Apostolic faith would point to this conclusion as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you’re saying that all Protestants of education concede that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, and that anyone who doesn’t follow this view is less educated? That there were some educated Protestants who espoused the point doesn’t mean that it’s true, or that they were correct in this, any more than heretics throughout Christian history can be called right simply for their education. Weak argument.

No, what I’m saying is that educated Protestants have already conceded the argument because the Greek supports the Catholic position and Protestant scholars know it. I have no explanation for those who don’t seem to get it.

Albright & Mann wrote: “one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence”.

D.A. Carson wrote: “Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter”.

R.T. France wrote: “It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed.”

These are the words of your fellow Protestants…

So you’re saying there’s no need to try to understand what the original Aramaic was?

Did I say that?

No – I’m asking why you accept the kepha/kepha explanation despite its lack of support, when what I have presented is at least as plausible.

Plausible if you are grasping at straws perhaps. Where is the trail of evidence that scholars down through the past 2,000 years have held your position as even a possibility? Sources, please.

Sure – try here.

Thank you.

I never questioned that Paul accepted the name as valid. I simply questioned the meaning of the name – how do you know that when Paul said Peter, he knew Peter to be the rock of the church? You assume it to be so, as if the name can have no other meaning.

You assume that Paul was aware of the implications of calling Simon “the Rock”, disagreed with the interpretation (ie, he didn’t think Peter was “the Rock”, and then went ahead and used the nickname which supported something he didn’t believe anyway? This strains credulity. Talk about grasping at straws.

Name changes do not necessarily make one ruler over X group. Paul is an example of this. James and John, the “Sons of Thunder”, had this to a degree, and yet we should think of these only Peter took on the role of leader?

Well, I suppose that if Jesus had said, “You are Sons of Thunder and on these Sons of Thunder I will build my Church” we would have some issues. But that’s not what happened, is it?

You’re assuming that Paul accepted the meaning that you accept.

As stated above, Paul understood the implications of calling Peter, “Rock”. And as we also know from scripture, Paul was not opposed to opposing Peter (or anyone or anything else he disagreed with) when he thought something was incorrect. Funny…he never suggests anywhere in his writings that Peter is NOT the rock.

 

[PC_Master]

Well, no. Actually, pointing out various possible ways to interpret the “you are Peter” statement does not make the papacy illegitimate.

I never said this was the case. But you’re assuming it to be true unless conclusively disproved. I’m assuming that we should prove what we’re going to believe in the first place.

Someone, or some group of someone’s, had to address, for example, differences of opinion regarding Christ’s divinity.

Had to? Or what?

Hierarchy has been a natural and demonstrated response in any group that has grown past a certain number of members.

There’s a difference between the “natural response of a group of people” as you would call it and an institution of God. I have no doubt people would want to appoint leaders in the church – the question is whether or not this was of God.

Now, we can still argue about whether or not that meant a papacy, a council, or some other form of authority. It certainly is clear that it did not take the form of the Holy Spirit just guiding each and every new Christian individually to the same conclusions. It just did not happen that way.

Nor did I ever claim it did. That the holy spirit is the rule of faith, and that the holy spirit leads, does not mean all believers will follow. Saying that not everyone follows the holy spirit disproves the leadership of the holy spirit only as much as saying Roman Catholics don’t agree disproves the leadership of the pope.

But that strikes me as…

More rhetoric. Nice.

By rejecting that Jesus had the power to institute Peter as Pope you are rejecting Lord Jesus and his saving Power.

Woah there – once again you ignore what I said and twist it to your own meaning. I never said that Jesus didn’t have the power to institute the papacy. I simply said that he did not do so.

Again, the words Kepa and Shuwa are synonymous unless you are talking about the word Shuwa that looks the same but has a different meaning.

Admittedly I’m not an expert on this, but if you’d care to substantiate your claims with some source material, that’d be great. Otherwise, they hold about as much water as saying kepha meant “unmovable rock”, which is obviously false.

Seriously, this claim sounds ridiculous to me, and I have tried (and failed) to find material to corroborate your claims, so please supply some source material.

The word Petra in Greek is used to translate both Kepa and Shu`wa into Greek.

In which case, the gender argument can even work against the Roman Catholic position…

You are kepha, and on this shu’a/shu’wa I will build my church.

…becomes…

You are petra and on this petra I will build my church.

…and then we fix the gender issue, and are left with…

You are petros, and on this petra I will build my church.

So far, you’ve not convinced me that either interpretation is more reasonable than the other.

Another interesting thing is that the Septuagint was written in KOINE Greek, NOT Attic, NOR Pelapanesean, NOR Girko.

Even the most rudimentary understanding of the evolution of language would tell you that none of those forms are completely distinct from one another. English is a great example. You can roughly approximate when Old English and Middle English were in use, but you cannot point to something and say “this is 100% middle English”. Definitions and word spellings survive from the oldest English to this very day.

It’s pretty well unargued that petros originally was a distinctly different word from petra. So, the question then becomes, how can you support your assertion that the two were 100% synonymous by the time the gospels were authored?

This is why even in the Septuagint we find them using both to refer to the same thing.

Care to substantiate this with some references?

The word would have been used so many times in the psalms to describe God that they got tired of it and started to insert other metaphoric words for God to prevent the Psalms from being just a list of Petra and Petos all over the place.

Generally a baseless assertion.

Wrong, The word used for Peter was Kepa, the exact same word that was used for Jesus Three times. Jesus gave his own name to Simon.

Interesting then that only one gospel records this “pivotal” event (which would no doubt be very important to the church), and that it doesn’t say “You are Peter and on you I will build my church.”

Also, where is it that Christ is called a kepha, except in places where it would be necessary as a literary device (such as “a stone of stumbling” and “the chief cornerstone”, both illustrations which used smaller stones)? Where is Christ just “a stone”?

We do know where Jesus pointed, he must have been pointing at Simon because the sounds that came out of his mouth to form the words that are recorded for us tell us that this must be so. The first eleven words of Jesus here give us a very clear indication of what he meant. Jesus says I say **I **to you (this is a singular word) you (again singular) are (a singular verb) Kepa on which (the very nature of this word implies that he is talking about Peter and ONLY Peter and any other explanation of it is always grammatically wrong for this langauge, it would be like saying HE AM. It just does not work) Kepa I will build My Church.

As far as I’m aware, the Greek “epi” generally means “upon”, not “on which”. The Greek “kai epi taute tu petra” would be “but/and/however/also upon/on this/that rock”. So, a legitimate translation might also be “You are a rock, but on that rock pointing toward Caesarea Philippi I will build my church.” You wrongly assume we can know for certain where Christ was pointing, and you make false assertions that the wording can only refer to Peter.

Why would Christ bring them to Caesarea Philippi and use such language if he was simply saying “I’m going to build my church on you, Simon, because you are now Peter” ? It doesn’t make any sense.

The name of the place where this happened has the word Kepa incorporated into it but the words of Lord Jesus point out to us clearly that he was not talking about the huge rock face there.

1. How is the word incorporated? I’ve never heard this claimed before.
2. How did Christ clarify that he wasn’t speaking of the mountainous Caesarea Philippi? In fact, I don’t see how you can avoid seeing the connection, given the additional use of “the gates of hell”.

Jesus did not suddenly switch into Hebrew and use Shu`wa or any other word. He said Kepa twice.

Proof? Got some logic to disprove shu’a (which is Syriac/Aramaic, not Hebrew – in Hebrew, the closest word would be sela/selah).

2 plus 2 is 4. 4 equals 2 plus 2. This is not circular logic…

No, but the mathematic equivalent – the number 2 represents the quantity we all know as 2. The laws of mathematics state that X plus Y becomes another real number, counting upward from the original (X) by Y increments of 1.

That’s logic. But then you added this – but we know that the laws of math work this way because we know 2 plus 2 is 4.

You’re saying that the RCC is the one that fulfills the prophecy because God has ordained it so. That’s fine. But to prove it, you say that you know God has ordained it so because the RCC has fulfilled it. You can’t have it both ways. One must be how you know the other, and the one must be supported by something else.

The Mountian represents Lord Jesus who is the Catholic Church (not just the Roman Catholic Church though we are the most visible part in English speaking countries.)

Oh, I see – now you’re saying it’s Jesus, and just sliding the RCC in there as being the same thing…without substantiation.

The words petra and petros in Koine Greek mean 100% the same thing. Even the pagans of the time would have used them as such. You have to go back centuries before the old Testament was translated into Greek to find a distinction and it was only ever found in ONE dialect of Greek, not all and certainly not Koine.

Aside form Koine being a transitional form, how do you demonstrate that the words were 100% synonymous? Where is there other use contemporary to scripture that shows them to mean the same?

What canned responses? Oh, you mean telling you the truth and not allowing you to lie to us.

No, I mean “Peter is the rock because Jesus said kepha twice.” Almost none of them can answer the question of “how do you know that”. Canned answers that you’ve memorized.

I’m just asking for some actual support to the claims here. After all, you’re the one claiming that kepha means “unmovable” rock.

More later…maybe.

[edit] Actually, for now, why don’t you answer this – if the original were kepha/shua as I’ve suggested, how might you translate that into Greek?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting then that only one gospel records this “pivotal” event (which would no doubt be very important to the church), and that it doesn’t say “You are Peter and on you I will build my church.”

Gee, only one letter in the New Testament (2 Timothy) contains anything that even remotely suggests that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, and you sola scripturists hang your collective hats on vv. 3:16-17.

Unfortunately for you, that verse simply does NOT say that the Bible is ***sufficient, ***but that inconvenient fact doesn’t stop most Protestants from declaring that anything other than the Bible is meaningless.

So, if you can base your entire ecclesiology (Luther said sola scriptura was the doctrine by which the Protestantism stood or fell) on a verse which does NOT say what you try to force it to say, it certainly seems that we ought to be able to make a strong enough case from a verse which clearly DOES state that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built.

On the one hand, you’re trying desperately to make the Word of God say something that is not actually there, and on the other, you’re trying every trick in the book to explain away what the text clearly states.

Is this exegesis or eisegesis in action?

If God really intended for the Bible to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer, then why the heck didn’t He state this pivotal doctrine in clear, unambiguous language?

 

[PC_Master]

I realize it’s easy to stereotype, but let me reiterate – I’ve never claimed to adhere to sola scriptura. I completely agree that the evidence for such a claim is very shaky…and I hold that the papacy is also false because it doesn’t have strong support (or any in the early centuries of the church for that matter).

Besides, if you think the evidence for SS is faulty, and thus the concept has no support, likening the papacy to it really isn’t a good course of action. It just gives me one more reason to disbelieve.

Anyway, it’s interesting to see how irate you guys are getting over this. I’d suggest you calm down a bit.

Claudius> Having spent a fair amount of time searching for material to support your rather odd claims, and finding nothing, I’m leaning toward dismissing them as nonsense. Still, if you’d like to provide some sources for your claims, I’d be more than willing to listen.

Also, I’m really not sure what Aramaic/Syriac text you’re using – please advise. Also, some evidence as to kepha meaning “unmovable rock” would be much appreciated.

I would also recommend you pray a bit about the meaning of charity before making such uncharitable comments in the future. It’s not going to do anything except destroy the exchange of information, making it useless to me. If your goal is simply to win a debate, go for it. If your goal is to share information in a compassionate manner, you’re not doing very well.

I’ve got to say, with all the rhetoric going around right now, it’s kind of difficult to decide what to respond to. Here’s hoping Claudius can support some of his claims.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I realize it’s easy to stereotype, but let me reiterate – I’ve never claimed to adhere to sola scriptura. I completely agree that the evidence for such a claim is very shaky…and I hold that the papacy is also false because it doesn’t have strong support (or any in the early centuries of the church for that matter).

What you’re actually saying is, “I’ve heard all the arguments, and I don’t believe them. Therefore, you have no support for this doctrine.”

Besides, if you think the evidence for SS is faulty, and thus the concept has no support, likening the papacy to it really isn’t a good course of action. It just gives me one more reason to disbelieve.

But that is not the logic of my argument which is that YOU (or most Protestants anyway) seem to find that one verse (2 Tim 3:16) is sufficient to prove sola scriptura while attempting to argue that one verse (Mt 16:18) is insufficient to support the papacy. You want to have it both ways.

 

[PC_Master]

What you’re actually saying is, “I’ve heard all the arguments, and I don’t believe them. Therefore, you have no support for this doctrine.”

I don’t believe them because there’s no support for them. People do things like saying “Jesus said kepha twice”, but fail to address how the Aramaic shu’a might have been translated, if not as petra. It’s an important question, and the lack of an answer bothers me somewhat.

But that is not the logic of my argument which is that YOU (or most Protestants anyway) seem to find that one verse (2 Tim 3:16) is sufficient to prove sola scriptura while attempting to argue that one verse (Mt 16:18) is insufficient to support the papacy. You want to have it both ways.

I understand the point you’re trying to make and I agree – many Protestants want to have it both ways. I’m not one of those, however. I think that 2 Timothy 3:16 is insufficient to support SS. Likewise, I think Matthew 16:18 is insufficient to support the papacy. I’m not playing both sides – I’m consistent, at least in this regard.

Actually, I’d say that the Roman Catholic position is closer to playing both sides than I am – on the one hand, Matthew 16:18 in and of itself is considered conclusive evidence that Peter was the rock of the church, and yet 2 Timothy 3:16 is insufficient to prove SS. Anyway, I agree – having a double-standard makes no sense, so I avoid doing so.

Unfortunately, people seem to keep accusing me of doing so. That seems more interesting to them than answering the very simple question – if Christ had used kepha and shu’a respectively in Matthew 16:18, how would it have been translated into Greek?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t believe them because there’s no support for them. People do things like saying “Jesus said kepha twice”, but fail to address how the Aramaic shu’a might have been translated, if not as petra. It’s an important question, and the lack of an answer bothers me somewhat.

What evidence is there that Jesus used shu’a? What sources can you cite for this idea? I’d like to take a look…

I understand the point you’re trying to make and I agree – many Protestants want to have it both ways. I’m not one of those, however. I think that 2 Timothy 3:16 is insufficient to support SS. Likewise, I think Matthew 16:18 is insufficient to support the papacy. I’m not playing both sides – I’m consistent, at least in this regard.

Kudos. This is refreshing.

Actually, I’d say that the Roman Catholic position is closer to playing both sides than I am – on the one hand, Matthew 16:18 in and of itself is considered conclusive evidence that Peter was the rock of the church, and yet 2 Timothy 3:16 is insufficient to prove SS.

Since when have Catholics ever relied on scripture alone to prove their case for the papacy? Or that Mt 16:18 is the sole verse that supports it? I concede that it is the first verse we tend to quote, but it is hardly ALL that the scriptures suggest about Peter’s primacy.

if Christ had used kepha and shu’a respectively in Matthew 16:18, how would it have been translated into Greek?

I have no idea. But why does my inability to answer what appears to be a hypothetical question undermine the argument that Peter is the rock? Again, what evidence is there that Jesus used “shu’a”, and why have no other Protestant scholars (at least none I am familiar with) advanced this argument?

If the case for “shu’a” is as strong as you suggest, I can’t help but believe that professional anti-Catholics (ie, James White, James Swan, Jimmy Swaggart, John Hagee and others) would have been flogging Catholics with it for past 500 years. But I don’t recall ever hearing this argument advanced before.

On the other hand, if this is just your own pet theory, you’re going to have to do more than offer “what ifs”.

 

[Claudius]

Ok, is everyone ready. I am going to lay it all out, that gauntlet has been thrown.

Woah there – once again you ignore what I said and twist it to your own meaning. I never said that Jesus didn’t have the power to institute the papacy. I simply said that he did not do so.

Jesus says that he did so. The only way that I can think that you can possible come to the conclusion that what Jesus said did not actually take place because you deny that Jesus had the power to do it.

Admittedly I’m not an expert on this, but if you’d care to substantiate your claims with some source material, that’d be great. Otherwise, they hold about as much water as saying kepha meant “unmovable rock”, which is obviously false.

Try a dictionary. Call someone who speaks Syriac. Go to the website for the Maronite Catholic Church and leave an Email asking the question. Learn Syriac and read the millions of documents in that langauge.

Seriously, this claim sounds ridiculous to me, and I have tried (and failed) to find material to corroborate your claims, so please supply some source material.

You obviously have not tried very hard.

In which case, the gender argument can even work against the Roman Catholic position…

You are kepha, and on this shu’a/shu’wa I will build my church.

…becomes…

You are petra and on this petra I will build my church.

…and then we fix the gender issue, and are left with…

You are petros, and on this petra I will build my church.

So far, you’ve not convinced me that either interpretation is more reasonable than the other.

The Grammar of the languages that we are dealing with not only make the Catholic interpretation FAR more reasonable it also make the Catholic interpretaion the only one that is grammatically correct.

Even the most rudimentary understanding of the evolution of language would tell you that none of those forms are completely distinct from one another. English is a great example. You can roughly approximate when Old English and Middle English were in use, but you cannot point to something and say “this is 100% middle English”. Definitions and word spellings survive from the oldest English to this very day.

This is a fluff arguament. Pelapanesian Greek and Attic were not mutually intelligable. Modern Greek and Grinko are not mutually intelligable. The vocabulary and idiom are different. So unless you are going to tell me that you can still drink MEAT you have no arguement. The word Petros and Petra are synonymous in Koine Greek. The millions of documents in this language tell us so. The Old Testament in this langauge tells us so. And once you get over this intellectual boundary, you will see that Matthew, 16:18 also tells us so.

It’s pretty well unargued that petros originally was a distinctly different word from petra. So, the question then becomes, how can you support your assertion that the two were 100% synonymous by the time the gospels were authored?

Millions of Koine Greek documents from Egypt to the Lavant to Greece, from 300 years before Jesus to the time of the Ottoman empire, they are synonymous. Call the Greek Orthodox Church and ask them. Learn to speak Koine Greek. Do your homework. No intellectually honest person that looks at this case will conclude anything other then in Koine Greek and in Matthew, they are Synonymous.

Care to substantiate this with some references?

Open to the book of Psalms and start reading.

Generally a baseless assertion.

This is actually a very, VERY, well known aspect of the Septuagint translation. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Jerome mentioned it when speaking about changing from the Greek to the Hebrew. Compare the Hebrew to the Greek (as I have done personally) and you can see it plain as day.

Interesting then that only one gospel records this “pivotal” event (which would no doubt be very important to the church), and that it doesn’t say “You are Peter and on you I will build my church.”

Seeing as how Matthew was written first and for a long time was the only Gospel universally accepted perhaps they didn’t see the need. But the Confession is there in other Gospels. Why did they take the time to mention it? The fact that it isn’t mentioned a lot lets us know that it was well known and accepted. The writers of the other Gospels assumed that the knowledge was already out, the same as they just assumed that everyone knew that Jesus worked as a carpenter.

Also, where is it that Christ is called a kepha, except in places where it would be necessary as a literary device (such as “a stone of stumbling” and “the chief cornerstone”, both illustrations which used smaller stones)? Where is Christ just “a stone”?

So you did your homework on this but now refuse to accept it. The fact is that Jesus is called a Kepa.

1. How is the word incorporated? I’ve never heard this claimed before.
2. How did Christ clarify that he wasn’t speaking of the mountainous Caesarea Philippi? In fact, I don’t see how you can avoid seeing the connection, given the additional use of “the gates of hell”.

The name of the place in Syriac is a word that has the word Kepa as part of the name. I will get the correct spelling for you in a bit but I do not want to write something wrong. You can probably look it up on the INTERNET.

Proof? Got some logic to disprove shu’a (which is Syriac/Aramaic, not Hebrew – in Hebrew, the closest word would be sela/selah).

The words of Jesus are recorded for us in Syriac and he says Kepa twice. Every single version of Matthew in Syriac records this for us.

No, but the mathematic equivalent – the number 2 represents the quantity we all know as 2. The laws of mathematics state that X plus Y becomes another real number, counting upward from the original (X) by Y increments of 1.

That’s logic. But then you added this – but we know that the laws of math work this way because we know 2 plus 2 is 4.

You’re saying that the RCC is the one that fulfills the prophecy because God has ordained it so. That’s fine. But to prove it, you say that you know God has ordained it so because the RCC has fulfilled it. You can’t have it both ways. One must be how you know the other, and the one must be supported by something else.

The Catholic Church is the One True Church, and that is the only conclusion you can honestly come to if you believe that Jesus is God. Once we know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, then we can know that the Catholic Church fullfill the prophecy. The prophecy makes no sense without the Catholic Church being in existance. The prophecy was made for the Catholic Church and now the Catholic Church as come, established by Jesus and lead by the Holy Spririt to give proper praise and worship to God the Father, to fullfill the prophecy. In a way, since God made the prophecy known and God established the Catholic Church, it is a self fulfilling prophecy. God kept his word.

Oh, I see – now you’re saying it’s Jesus, and just sliding the RCC in there as being the same thing…without substantiation.

Paul makes that claim. Legitimate Exegesis makes that claim. That has been the claim of Christians for 2000 years. Besides, why don’t you open your Bible to the letter to Timothy and read about how the Church is the Foundation of the truth.

Aside form Koine being a transitional form, how do you demonstrate that the words were 100% synonymous? Where is there other use contemporary to scripture that shows them to mean the same?

Go to any website that contains documents written in Koine Greek and start reading. Many of these documents have been translated into the other prominent languages of the time, notably, Coptic, Syriac and Latin. It is easy to connect the dots. Legitimate scholars don’t even question this anymore.

By the way, every Greek that I know would probably take offense to you saying that Koine Greek was a transitional language. It was the Official language of the second half of the Byzantine Empire and for a while after independence, it was the official language of modern day Greece.

No, I mean “Peter is the rock because Jesus said kepha twice.” Almost none of them can answer the question of “how do you know that”. Canned answers that you’ve memorized.

True answers that do not change. EVERY SINGLE version of Matthew in Syriac has the words recorded for us. We do not have to imagine what his words might have been. We know what they actually were. Jesus said Kepa twice. Not because we want that to be true but because that is what happened.

I’m just asking for some actual support to the claims here. After all, you’re the one claiming that kepha means “unmovable” rock.

Try a Syriac English dictionary.

Actually, for now, why don’t you answer this – if the original were kepha/shua as I’ve suggested, how might you translate that into Greek?

Well the word Boynos comes to mind but that word was not used in the Bible and is far besides the point as we shall all see since Jesus absolutely did not use the word Shu’wa.

 

[Claudius]

Ok, is everyone ready? I am going to lay out the Grammar. No head knodding now!! Everyone pay attention. This guy has been busted. He has not been dealing with us honestly or in good faith. He has been telling us things that I can reasonably assume he already knows to be false. Either way you want to slice it, no matter how it comes down, the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is correct and is the ONLY correct way to look at it. Here is why.

As far as I’m aware, the Greek “epi” generally means “upon”, not “on which”. The Greek “kai epi taute tu petra” would be “but/and/however/also upon/on this/that rock”. So, a legitimate translation might also be “You are a rock, but on that rock pointing toward Caesarea Philippi I will build my church.” You wrongly assume we can know for certain where Christ was pointing, and you make false assertions that the wording can only refer to Peter.

Why would Christ bring them to Caesarea Philippi and use such language if he was simply saying “I’m going to build my church on you, Simon, because you are now Peter” ? It doesn’t make any sense.

First let us establish what we are talking about. Here is the passage in question in Syriac and then in Greek with my personal translation and commontary.

Syriac

(Of) (eno’) (omar) (‘no’) (lok) (da’nt) (muw) (Ki’po’) (w’al) (mode’) (Ki’po’) (‘ebne’m) (l’idty) (wtar’e’) (das’uwl) (‘al) (nehsnuwnom)

(also) (I) (say) (I) (to you) (you) (are) (Rock) (and) (on which) (Rock) (I will build) (my Church) (gates) (of hell) (not) (will surround).

Both “you”s are singular. The word for “on which” must refer to Peter because of word order. Jesus creates a very personal tone by specifically saying that he is talking to Simon only. You can almost imagine his finger pointing. I say, I to you (only), you are The Rock and on This Rock I will build my Church that the gates of hell shall not conquer.

Greek

(kago) (de) (soi) (lego) (oti) (sy) (ei) (Petros) (kai) (epi) (tayte i) (te i) (Petra i) (oikodomeso) (moy) (Ten) (ekklesian) (kai) (pylai) (a i doy) (oy) (katischysoysin) (aytes).

(also) (but) (to you) (I say) (that) (you) (are) (Rock) (and) (on) (this) (the) (Rock) (I will build) (my) (the) (Church) (and) (gates) (of hell) (not) (will conquer) (they).

The de used here is an attempt to recreate the personal tone fo a private conversation between Jesus and Peter.

Now that we have the basics out of the way we need to know something about the Grammar that is going on here so that we can all have faith in Jesus with confidence that he keeps his word to us.

Petros and Petra are Synonymous. We can deduce this just from this one passage. If the Greek was written first and the Syriac is a translation of it, then we see clearly that Kepa is used twice. Whatever distinction existed in Greek did not carry over to the use of different words or even for the word used to be in a different state according to non-linear word morphology. If you believe that the Greek was written first, then you have to admit that the reasonable conclusion is that Petros and Petra are synonymous.

If you believe that the Syriac was written first, and in the case of Matthew there is a lot of linguistic evidence that supports this claim, then the Petros and Petra are synonymous because the same word, Kepa in the same state is used to create both in Greek.

If you believe that both are independent recordings of the preaching of St. Matthew then the Syriac version is the more authentic because it appeared first and is in the langauge that Matthew would have preached in and we see that no matter what language he preached in, Kepa is used twice where Petros and Petra are used in Greek. Petros and Petra must be synonymous no matter which way you look at it. You have to claim that people are lying and making intentionally bad translations in order to not conclude this.

The word De in Greek can be used to mean And or But. However, the word Kai can only be used to mean And. Every Greek dictionary says so.

Jesus did not used the word Shu’wa and we can reasonably conclude that when he said Kepa the second time he was not talking about the rock face even though it has a name in Syriac that has the word Kepa in it. We know this becauce the word used in Syriac to say (on which/this) precludes this possibility and would be grammatically wrong.

Now in Greek we have two different words for ON and This and along with the ever present Greek article. This is becuase Greek does not use non-linear word morphology but instead uses a special adverb called a preposition. This isn’t a big deal, just a mark of translation.

In the Greek we need to remember that either it is a translation of the preaching of Matthew directly or it is a translation of the Syriac version of Matthew. All of that is besides the point though. Even if Jesus made his pronouncement in Greek, the Catholic interpretation is still the only correct one because of the grammar of the sentence.

Even if you do not believe that Petros and Petra are synonymous, which they are, you have to conclude that Jesus is using both for Peter because of the word Tayte.

This is a demonstrative that is kind of being used as a relative. Now it is times like this where we need to turn English grammar off in our heads in order to understand this. In modern English, you can only say This and That. This is anything close to the speaker, even the listener, and that is anything far away from the speaker, even the if it is the listener. There are only two degrees.

In Greek there are three degrees. There is “this” that is close to the speaker. There is “this/that” which is close to the listener but not close to the speaker. Finally there is “that” which is far away from BOTH the listener and the speaker.

Jesus used the word “tayte”. This word is of the second degree, close to the listener but not th speaker. Jesus already told us that he was speaking to just ONE person with “Soi”. The nature of this word proves that Petra and Petros must be refering to the same thing. Tayte must refer to the last noun that was said before it, that would be Peter. If it is refering to anything else, it is grammatically the wrong word. It can not be refering to the Rock Face there because that would have been “ekeine” and Kai would be grammatically the wrong word to use, they would have had to use De. If Jesus was refering to Faith, then the word would have been “tede” and again “kai” would be grammatically wrong in this place in the sentence. Just in case you are wondering, “tayte” is in fact sometimes used to mean “you” in English but this is considered a slightly offensive way to say “you” in Koine Greek.

The next issue that I want to bring up is the use of the article in the sentence. The Greek article is ever present and is used in many places where we would not use it in English even though “the” is the most frequent word in the English language. However, one place that the article is not normally used is with the Demostrative/Relative/pronoun. The use here of the word of the word “te” here following “tayte” creates a grammatical form of this word that means “the same”. With this form in place, the word “de” (but) can not be used or it is grammatically wrong. Even if “kai” could mean “but” (which it can not) that meaning of the word would be wrong and it would have to mean “and”.

The literal translation of (Petros kai epi tayte te Petra) is (Rock and on the same Rock).

This is all it can mean and be grammatically correct. Some people don’t want to accept the idea of “the same” because that is just too clear cut but even just using “tayte” alone, Jesus must be refering to Peter. Some text have the “the” before the “this/that” and some text have it after. It doesn’t matter either way but the Before is a bit more obvious. I have used the after here so that you can see that even in that case, the point is still very clear. All these words are in the same case and thus they make a clause and the normal way would have excluded the article from being written if the writer did not want to use the “the same” idiom.

Now, I normally don’t deal too much with the Greek since I feel that the Syriac is the actual recording of the actual sounds that came out of Lord Jesus’ mouth. However, the Greek, when properly parsed and examined, show an even stronger showing for the Papal claims to primacy then the Syriac.

 

[Claudius]

Now that I have all that grammar out of the way we need to all sit and think about what this all means.

We have the prophecy from Daniel that the Catholic Church fulfills. We have the fact that God the Father is called a Rock and then we see the link to God the Father that Jesus has by Jesus being called the Rock. They are both refered to as “the Rock that saves me”.

Then Jesus gives his own title to Simon, Simon gets to be the Rock. He is also called one fo the three pillars of the Church and he is the one who appointed the Bishops of Jerusalam (James the Just) and Antioch (Evodius). Both of their successors were consecrated to the clergy by Peter, Simeon and Ignatius.

Paul equates the Church with Christa and this makes very good sense then that the visible leader of the Church would have Lord Jesus’ name, may it always be blessed. Paul also calles the Church the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. I feel this illudes in some way to Peter, who was called the Pillar and Rock upon which the Church is built. Then we have to quotes from the early Church that proclaim that where Peter is, so is the Church.

Whatever it was about this man that Jesus chose to lead his Church and build his Church, it was something that the early Christians just got and understood completely. The Church is built on Peter. Then we find out that the Church of St. Peter’s was actually built on top of Peter’s grave. The messages begin to mount up so much and are just so powerful after a while that all that is left is to submit to God and his plan for our salvation. The Catholic Church is instramental to that Plan.

The Byzantines, Coptics, Aethiopeans, Syrians, Assyrians, Armenians, and Slavonincs are all coming to see this too. The proclamaitions of the councils ring true to Scripture and Church history. The eventual renion between the Catholic Church and these groups is coming faster and faster everyday. The latest news tells us that the Armenians are willing to break communion with the Coptics to join the Catholic Church. The Syrians are begining to see that their leadership long ago choose to rejoin the Catholic Church so that reconsilation between them and the Syrac Catholic Church can begin. The Coptics are taking a, we will go along if the Byzantines do, seeing that it might end the schism between the orientals and the Greeks, leaving only one Patriarch in Aegypt. They Byzantines more closer ot reunion every year and the recent meeting in Revana shows good fruit. The Assyrians are just a vote away from reunion. The last hold out could be Russia but even there we are now opening up dialogue on the meaning of Cannonical Territory and with prayer and trust in God, we can come to the truth together.

Our long years of prayer are bearing very good fruit but we can not stop. Together, let us all make an intention that we will pray and for the full reunion of our Church so that all Christians can once again proclaim that truth of Christ and the Church he builds on Peter.

 

[Contarini]

Since when have Catholics ever relied on scripture alone to prove their case for the papacy? Or that Mt 16:18 is the sole verse that supports it?

The OP implies that if you think Peter is the rock you must accept “Roman” Catholicism wholesale.

Edwin

 

[Claudius]

The OP implies that if you think Peter is the rock you must accept “Roman” Catholicism wholesale.

Edwin

If you accept that Peter is the Rock, then the final conclusion of a guienuine search for the truth will show you that the Catholic Church is right. Not many people accept Catholicism wholesale but after all the study and struggle that I went to the be where I am, I almost feel like maybe I should have and just trusted in God. I waisted many years trying to question and go my own way but my way was going to lead me to Hell. I have to do it God’s way and I just wish I could get some of those years back so that I could be a good Catholic from the start.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The OP implies that if you think Peter is the rock you must accept “Roman” Catholicism wholesale.

Edwin

But that is not quite the same thing as saying that Mt 16:18 is the only support for the papacy. Or that we rely soley on scripture for our understanding.

The OP seems to feel that once the papacy is firmly established (and that Peter=rock), the logical conclusion is to become Catholic.

I agree.

 

[Contarini]

But that is not quite the same thing as saying that Mt 16:18 is the only support for the papacy. Or that we rely soley on scripture for our understanding.

The OP seems to feel that once the papacy is firmly established (and that Peter=rock), the logical conclusion is to become Catholic.

I agree.

Sigh. The problem is that Peter=rock does not “firmly establish” the papacy. You have to establish why Peter was called rock, whether he had successors, and who those successors are.

Furthermore, one can acknowledge that the papacy is instituted by Christ and even that it is protected from apostasy without becoming Catholic. One can argue that the papacy may be indefectible without being infallible. And if the papacy chooses to establish untenable conditions for being in communion with it, then some of us may have to be out of communion for a while. It doesn’t follow that the gates of hell have prevailed.

The whole line of argument that rests on Matt. 16:18 is too black-and-white. It assumes that either everything Catholics claim about the papacy is true, or Catholicism is apostate. This works a lot of the time because a lot of fundamentalists do believe this. It doesn’t work very well against those of us who don’t think Catholicism is apostate. In fact most of the standard Catholic-apologist arguments don’t work very well against moderate Protestants. That’s why you need to start refining your arguments a bit.

Edwin

 

[Claudius]

Sigh. The problem is that Peter=rock does not “firmly establish” the papacy. You have to establish why Peter was called rock, whether he had successors, and who those successors are.

Furthermore, one can acknowledge that the papacy is instituted by Christ and even that it is protected from apostasy without becoming Catholic. One can argue that the papacy may be indefectible without being infallible. And if the papacy chooses to establish untenable conditions for being in communion with it, then some of us may have to be out of communion for a while. It doesn’t follow that the gates of hell have prevailed.

The whole line of argument that rests on Matt. 16:18 is too black-and-white. It assumes that either everything Catholics claim about the papacy is true, or Catholicism is apostate. This works a lot of the time because a lot of fundamentalists do believe this. It doesn’t work very well against those of us who don’t think Catholicism is apostate. In fact most of the standard Catholic-apologist arguments don’t work very well against moderate Protestants. That’s why you need to start refining your arguments a bit.

Edwin

The way I see it, acknowledging that Peter is the Rock is a step. It is one of many steps. It is easy to concede that the Papacy is completely true and correct yet still not be in complete communion with Rome. I wouldn’t go that route but I can see how it can be done.

My issue is the Eucharist. For me, that is what being Catholic is all about. I know that other non Catholic Churches also have a valid Eucharist, that is all fine and all but for me, if you truly believe in the Eucharist, then it follows that you will eventually want to become Catholic. I just could not be protestant because I understand the Eucharist. Once the Eucharist is understood, then it becomes a search for Church leadership which must be preasent. That search will lead to the Pope.

I see the doctrines of Catholicism as a big pillar. From every angle it stands up. It all supports itself completely. If you take out one doctrine, then the whole thing falls down.

For me, Scripture and Church History paint a clear picture. From the Cannons of the councils to the words in the Bible to the models of how to live a holy life that fill the Catholic Church, I am just overwhelmed. I have concluded for myself, if Catholicism is wrong, then Christianity is bogus. Besides, even when I begin to thing now that the Church might not be the One True Church, the memory of the miracles that I have seen with my own eyes tells me again that the Church must be right or I should be in an insane asylum.