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

[PC_Master]

Why don’t we just begin with all of the Protestant scholars who have stated that Peter is the rock?

Because that’s not what I asked for.

The question is also not if there are Protestants who hold that Peter is the rock – the OP was about how they could do this and yet not become Roman Catholic.

Of course, Jesus did not speak Greek but Aramaic. Therefore, the words that Jesus actually spoke would be more accurately translated, “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.”

How do you know this? How do you know he didn’t say “You are kepha but on this shu’a I will build my church” ? I agree that we can’t assert petros and petra are different simply because they’re different in Greek, but surely you have some supporting logic as to why you think a rather non-standard translation of kepha->petra would have happened, do you not?

The confusion over the masculine and feminine forms of the Greek petros

and petra would not occur in Aramaic.Agreed – but if somehow the original were kepha/shua, and were translated to petros/petra, would we not have the same confusion and argument as we do now?

We can see the use of the Greek form of Simon’s new name, Cephas, in several verses.

Right – this is how we know petros was translated from kepha.

Even Paul, the favorite Apostle of Protestants, called Peter “Cephas” in several of his letters which indicates that even Paul understood that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was founded. If not, he would have referred to Peter as “Simon” instead.

According to one of the gospels (Mark, I believe), Peter was called this by Christ from the beginning of his ministry, long before Matthew 16:18. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to think that he may have held this nickname from friends and family before meeting Christ.

Regardless – that Paul called Peter by this instead of Simon only indicates that he knew of the nickname, not that he agreed with a particular interpretation of Matthew 16.

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority.

Universally acknowledged…except for the Eastern Orthodox (and various other splinter groups that happened before Luther). And, I’d argue that it was the rejection of the claim of authority that was part of the cause for them to break away, not the result of the action.

They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

How do you define “plain reading”?

I’d really like to see you address my post on the subject, explaining why kepha/kepha would be rather odd to use.

2 cents: For St. John Chrysostom, Peter was “the foundation of the Church”, whom Christ made “stronger than any rock” (while Paul was “the vessel of election”, and he called both coryphaei, leaders - a term also applied to James, Andrew and John, though Peter is the foremost coryphaeus). Yet Chrysostom also said the foundation of the church was the faith of Peter’s confession.

I won’t ask for sources at this point, though they certainly would interest me. Anyway, that’s 1. Got more?

Or they post page-long contortions of logic…

Care to explain what’s contorted?

…while taking substantial liberties with both ancient and modern language…

Such as? Personally, I think saying that petros cannot have been meant as a separate word is quite a liberty, given that there’s evidence to support that it in fact did have a distinct meaning of its own.

…to postulate a quasi-believable “refutation” containing, when viewed from just the right angle, perhaps the slightest glimmer of plausibility.

Feel free to address the issues I raised if you feel this way.

ANYTHING to avoid becoming Catholic!

No – anything to find the truth.

If the church was to persist until the end of the age, wouldn’t it do so best in the form in which Christ created it?

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

Christ didn’t say “but on this rock.” He said “and on this rock.” There is difference. Do you see the difference?

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.

searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532&l=en

Also, could you explain the difference in the masculine and feminine form of the Greek words petros and petras? Is this masucline verses feminine usage evident in either aramaic or hebrew?

On this issue, I’m unsure. My understanding is that both are actually masculine words. I came across one article a while back that suggested it would have been perfectly proper to adapt petra into the masculine petras, which could have been used for Peter’s name. I don’t have that article handy, but if you’d like to explain what the importance is of the two different words, I’d like to hear it. Any source material you have on easily explaining different cases of Greek words would be useful as well.

I submit the grammar issue is of more concern to us today then it was when this was written. My point was, despite our wrangling over grammar, a hierarchy did in fact come into being.

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?

At certain and rather lengthy points in Christian history this hierarchy was not seriously challenged in any substantive and material manner that we can point at until the split between East and West churches.

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).

A hierarchical structure seems to make sense…

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

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.

The issue becomes, at some point, who is the authoritative expert on the meaning of this or that teaching? Where does this authority come from? How is this authority to be exercised?

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.

Now, I realize today that we need to grasp the grammar to grasp Christ’s meaning in the peter, rock, etc. statements. Our understanding of the grammar doesn’t change what factually happened however.

Of course, but the Roman Catholic contention is not only that “the RCC started to exist” but that “God made it happen”. Whether the RCC is right, or it’s wrong doesn’t change what actually happened, and whether or not God actually created the RCC – but isn’t trying to understand the truth a worthy cause in any case? Either the earth goes around the sun, or the sun goes around the earth – I can’t change it, but I sure do want to understand it.

I and many other moderate Protestants do not claim that the “Catholic Church has lost its way.” We simply are not convinced that the churches in communion with Rome constitute the Catholic Church in all its fullness. We don’t think you are heretics. We just think that you claim more for your particular Communion than is currently the case.

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.

Protestants, look at sacred Scripture as an “instruction manual”. Consequently all they can do is haggle over word definitions etc… They can’t get too deep into church history, because their history only starts from the Reformation.

While this is often asserted, I know of very few Protestants who would willingly ignore the ECFs, etc. Ignoring the RCC’s interpretation thereof, on the other hand, is another story.

It’s obvious that since Jesus never wrote a single word, that he discussed in great detail how this unlikely group of men would shepherd His Church.

It seems that they should have been more overt in their discussions of the papacy then.

Thirty thousand different denominations…

Didn’t we already deal with this one?

[edit]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 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.

 

[po18guy]

Care to explain what’s contorted?

How about switching between languages, switching between genders of words, switching historical contexts, switching between translations, proclaiming that the mountain or place upon which they stood was somehow “the rock”, re-analyzing, over-analyzing. In short, muddying the waters with every modern man-made possibility of meaning contained within this simple, declarative sentence. This is nothing more than theological “rock, pebble, scissors”!

As well, all of this completely ignores the structure of the early church. The early church follows the plain reading of the scripture verses, with Peter pre-eminent among equals. Remember, at that time there were no evil Roman Catholics muscling the ECF’s into an organizational style and theological bent which would later empower “Rome” to “take over” the Christian church.

All of this, for centuries now, for the purpose of avoiding the plain fact that the Christ founded one church, which continues to exist as the Catholic Church. Where’s the obedience? Where is the denial of self, the taking up of one’s cross and then following Christ? I sucked it up and joined. The Lord has patiently revealed the truth of the church’s teachings to me. It didn’t happen overnight, but there is no other church for me. I am home.

Christ’s peace.

 

[kaycee]

And you call yourself a “bible Christian”? Please read these points and scripture passages, perhaps for the first time:

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next closest is John, “the beloved disciple” at 29 times. Peter is always listed first among the Apostles (Mt 10:2-5, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-17, Acts 1:13)

Also, you read “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing his position amongst them

Also, Peter was the only Apostle who:

Walked on water (Matthew 14:30) Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus…

Raised the dead: (Acts 9:36-42) In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. Lydda was near Joppa; so when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Please come at once!” Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them. Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.

Whose healings were individually recorded: Acts 3:3-8 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God.

Peter was sent to the Gentiles as well as Paul: Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe”

Could this be why Peter was viewed as slightly more than just a face in the crowd?

Peter was most likely at Rome, but so was Paul. Being present in Rome does not make one the Bishop of Rome.

"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.

"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.

"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years.

"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.

"From Rome also Paul’s last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, ‘At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me’ (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, ‘Only Luke is with me’ (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

“So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, ‘Only Luke is with me.’”

While it is most likely that Peter visited Rome and was probably martyred there the biblical record testifies that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome while Paul was alive.

 

[JRKH]

Peter was most likely at Rome, but so was Paul. Being present in Rome does not make one the Bishop of Rome.

Irenaeus of Lyon in his writings “Against Heresies” demonstrates that from very early on in Church History, the Church at Rome was held in highest regard and was considered to be the center of the Church because of it’s “pedigree”

From Irenaeus of Lyons - “Against Heresies” circa 190 AD.
“It is possible then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew or taught anything like these heretics rave about”.
Irenaeus goes on to list the Bishops of,
"…the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. **For this Church, because of its superior origin, **all Churches must agree, that is all the faithful of the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
The Blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus… To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate…To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed ; after him,Telephorus whoalso was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him Pius; and after him Anicetus, Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after teh apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

I apologize for any misspellings in the above as I was copying it from one of my books.
I included the actual listing of Bishops of Rome to illustrate the clear Apostolic line from Peter down to Ireneus own time. Perhaps Peter never carried the “Title” of Bishop of Rome, but it is certainly obvious that Ireneus considered the Line as coming from him and the Church in Rome to be the greatest of the Churches for that reason.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because that’s not what I asked for.

The question is also not if there are Protestants who hold that Peter is the rock – the OP was about how they could do this and yet not become Roman Catholic.

I think the point is that if learned Protestant scholars - who have no desire to advance Rome’s cause - agree that this is a moot point, why do other Protestants who are less well educated continue to argue the issue? Ignorance of the facts?

How do you know this? How do you know he didn’t

say “You are kepha but on this shu’a I will build my church” ?Gee, using this line of reasoning, how can we be sure of anything Jesus said? Either God has inspired and protected His word or He hasn’t.

I’m supposed to except the premise that Jesus actually said, “You are kepha (little pebble) but on this shu’a (large rock) I will build my Church”?

Forgive me while I pause to take in the novelty of the argument…perhaps you can point me to the post where you first advanced this novelty. I apologize for coming to the thread late and missing it.

I agree that we can’t assert petros and petra are different simply because they’re different in Greek, but surely you have some supporting logic as to why you think a rather non-standard translation of kepha->petra would have happened, do you not?

I’m not following you…what is non-standard about the translation?

According to one of the gospels (Mark, I believe), Peter was called this by Christ from the beginning of his ministry, long before Matthew 16:18. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to think that he may have held this nickname from friends and family before meeting Christ.

This is the weakest of your arguments. At the time the Gospel would have been penned, Simon had been known as Peter/Petros/Kepha/Cephas for several decades. One can forgive the author of the Gospel for calling the leader of the Church by the name by which he had been known for so long even if the sequence was upset.

Regardless – that Paul called Peter by this instead of Simon only indicates that he knew of the nickname

, not that he agreed with a particular interpretation of Matthew 16.Surely you have not forgotten that Saul had himself undergone a name-change like Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel before him. Paul, the scholar, would not have been unfamiliar with something as significant as a change of names made by God Himself. Paul’s use of the name and the meaning it carried implies acceptance and approval. Otherwise, Paul could have called him simply Simon.

Finally, there is the little matter of the divine inspiration of the sacred scriptures to contend with. Are you suggesting that Paul was merely using a nickname that he didn’t necessarily buy into but he used it anyway out of expediency? Call me crasy, but I think the Holy Spirit was a bit more precise than that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

While it is most likely that Peter visited Rome and was probably martyred there the biblical record testifies that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome while Paul was alive.

But the Bible is not the only historically accurate record we have, is it?

 

[PC_Master]

This looks like a “throw enough at the wall and maybe something will stick” response. But here it goes anyway…

How about switching between languages…

You mean Aramaic/Syriac and Greek? The Roman Catholic argument does the same thing.

If we stick with just Greek, we’ve got petros and petra which are two separate Greek words – one referring to a huge rock mass (petra), and one referring to a smaller, more movable rock (petros).

…switching between genders of words…

Again, the RCC insists on this to support its own position, so why should my argument not address it?

…switching historical contexts…

I have no idea what you mean here.

…switching between translations…

Again, I’m not sure what you mean here.

…proclaiming that the mountain or place upon which they stood was somehow “the rock”…

So the location of the conversation, and the fact that there was a really large rock mass which would be called by the same name Jesus was using in his conversation, had nothing to do with the conversation?

…re-analyzing, over-analyzing.

Where, how?

In short, muddying the waters with every modern man-made possibility of meaning contained within this simple, declarative sentence. This is nothing more than theological “rock, pebble, scissors”!

You act as though the sentence reads “You are the rock upon which I will build my church.” and you seem very flustered that someone would disagree with you.

As well, all of this completely ignores the structure of the early church.

You mean the church that had no papacy that we can see, that had no liturgy, etc?

I think the point is that if learned Protestant scholars - who have no desire to advance Rome’s cause - agree that this is a moot point, why do other Protestants who are less well educated continue to argue the issue? Ignorance of the facts?

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.

Gee, using this line of reasoning, how can we be sure of anything Jesus said? Either God has inspired and protected His word or He hasn’t.
So you’re saying there’s no need to try to understand what the original Aramaic was?

I’m supposed to except the premise that Jesus actually said, “You are kepha (little pebble) but on this shu’a (large rock) I will build my Church”?

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.

Forgive me while I pause to take in the novelty of the argument…perhaps you can point me to the post where you first advanced this novelty. I apologize for coming to the thread late and missing it.

Sure – try here.

I’m not following you…what is non-standard about the translation?
Kepha is generally translated as lithos in Greek.
Shu’a is generally translated as petra in Greek.
Kepha being translated as petros is a rather specialized case, probably because lithos isn’t a perfect translation of kepha, and the translators/authors may have thought Simon-Peter to have been more important than simply lithos.

This is the weakest of your arguments. At the time the Gospel would have been penned, Simon had been known as Peter/Petros/Kepha/Cephas for several decades. One can forgive the author of the Gospel for calling the leader of the Church by the name by which he had been known for so long even if the sequence was upset.
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.

Surely you have not forgotten that Saul had himself undergone a name-change like Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel before him.

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?

Paul’s use of the name and the meaning it carried implies acceptance and approval.

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

 

[po18guy]

Peter was most likely at Rome, but so was Paul. Being present in Rome does not make one the Bishop of Rome. "In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter. "In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter. "At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years. "The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.
"From Rome also Paul’s last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, ‘At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me’ (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle. "And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, ‘Only Luke is with me’ (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive. “So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, ‘Only Luke is with me.’”
While it is most likely that Peter visited Rome and was probably martyred there the biblical record testifies that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome while Paul was alive.

Your comments do not address Christ’s placing of Peter as the leader. Paul was not even Christian at that time! How on earth could he have been the leader? He was out arresting Christians.

Limiting yourself to the bible is akin to basing your Doctoral dissertation upon Cliff’s Notes. In a minimum of four places, the bible itself says it is incomplete. The NT is the sacred Cliffs Notes of Christ, and was NEVER meant to be used by itself.

There is much more to the story. Tell me how three years of daily teaching, preaching and healing are contained in those four short Gospels. Thicker books have been written covering one hour! If you are bible only, I pray for you.

Paul. Paul Paul! Don’t you think he had a major rivalry with Peter? Paul, the wealthy, educated, urbane, literate Pharisee versus the sweaty, rash fisherman who was chosen by Christ? And yet, you are not faithful even to Paul! You have thrown away the traditions that he admonished you to keep! The bitter pill is that you must become Eastern Orthodox of Catholic to experience the fulness of Paul’s teaching.

You have at max 50% of the story. I knew there was more, and I found it.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Frater_Bovious]

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?

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

Someone, or some group of someone’s, had to address, for example, differences of opinion regarding Christ’s divinity. You dismiss my statement that a hierarchy seems to make sense as emotional and as something that I am just used to.

It is not an appeal to emotion. Hierarchy has been a natural and demonstrated response in any group that has grown past a certain number of members. This was not a new phenomenon even back then. And, simply, there was a hierarchy (any system of persons or things ranked one above another, from dictionary.com), as demonstrated by the apostles selecting the 7 to handle administrative functions so they could pray and lead. Specifically, the 7 were put in place, by the apostles, to oversee the daily distributions. That is an example of a hierarchy in action.

It is logical and honest, not emotional, to recognize that there was a hierarchy, and that this hierarchy would develop as the need arose, just as it developed in response to complaints regarding the daily distribution, leading to the selection of the 7.

As to hierarchy being something I’m just used to, and it coloring my thoughts, well, certainly you don’t believe that the Jews becoming Christians weren’t used to the concept of hierarchy. They were under Roman Rule for one thing. For another, they had a whole system of Sanhedrin and Pharisees, Priests and the like which were simple daily realities.

It was a natural development for the early church as it grew, and not at all surprising given the fact that the new Christians were coming from a very structured religion to start with.

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.

If the Holy Spirit did in fact guide the early church (which it did), the least that we can say is that it clearly did not guide it away from hierarchy, and it clearly did not prevent every single individual Christian from thinking and speaking various heresies.

Now, I suppose we could argue that indeed the Holy Spirit did not guide each individual away from heresy, and thus the papacy. But that strikes me as an argument from desperation, devoid of Scriptural support.

Frater Bovious

 

[Claudius]

Simple – one simply rejects the assertion that Peter was a pope, or that he acted as one.

By rejecting that Jesus had the power to institute Peter as Pope you are rejecting Lord Jesus and his saving Power. This is a form of legitimate exegesis and is the obvious conclusion to your remars here.

Interesting that God isn’t usually a keph or kepha in scripture. He’s usually a shua/sela (rendered petra in Greek) – check out the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). God is a mountain, a strong tower, a firm foundation – not simply a stone.

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. One word Shuwa means Rock. Another Shuwa means Lord. The word Petra in Greek is used to translate both Kepa and Shu`wa into Greek. Another interesting thing is that the Septuagint was written in KOINE Greek, NOT Attic, NOR Pelapanesean, NOR Girko. In Koine Greek, Petra and Petros are 100% Synonymous. This is why even in the Septuagint we find them using both to refer to the same thing. 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.

Also, when Christ is referred to as a stone, he’s not just a stone, for even the apostles and prophets were stones in the foundation of the building – Christ, however, was the corner stone. So, God/Jesus was a firm foundation, a mountain, a rocky fortress, a solid rock, or the corner stone (the most important stone in the foundation of a building). Peter was simply “a stone”.

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.

Hypothetically, if I took you to the site of a mountain , and said to you “You are a rock”, and then pointed up at the mountain and said “but on this mountain, this crag, this bedrock I will build my church,” – would you try to argue that rock and mountain meant the same and were referring to the same thing? I realize we don’t know where Jesus pointed, if anywhere – it’s just a bit of emphasis to show what I think Christ was saying.

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.

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.

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

So, we know the RCC is the church appointed by God because it fulfills the prophecy? Wait, no – you said that only the RCC can fulfill the prophecy because it is the church appointed by God. This is called circular logic, and it really doesn’t help the conversation.

2 plus 2 is 4. 4 equals 2 plus 2. This is not circular logic, this is simply the facts of real life and will always be so not matter what your twist of logic you use to make yourself believe what you want come to.

So, we’re talking about a literal mountain, made of rock, right? I think you’re saying it’s figurative, but somehow a figurative mountain must represent the RCC, and can’t represent anything 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.)

While it’s true I got my material from several sources, some of it comes from personal study, and I certainly have never seen it assembled in such a way before. On the contrary, I would cite most Roman Catholic responses as simply regurgitating canned answers, which is all well and good until those are defeated, such as is the case on the petros/petra issue. At that point, most Roman Catholics just say nothing further, and ignore the point.

Catholics do not ignore any point nor ignore any challenge to our truth. 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. The poeple who wrote the New Testament and who read the New Testament would have had zero concept of these words meaning something different.

Catholics do not just regurgatate the same answers, we tell the true answers which never change. One the contrary, protestants need the Catholic Church to be wrong in order to continue to exist and so every time the Catholics prove you wrong beyond all doubt you have to change again and make things up anew and then the Catholics have to go chasing after you to get you to come back to true Christianity.

I’ve met one or two (I’m certainly not – I do the best I can with the information I have). Then again, I don’t know many Roman Catholics (here or elsewhere) who are fluent in Syriac, Latin, Greek or Hebrew. That doesn’t stop them from slinging around canned responses.

What canned responses? Oh, you mean telling you the truth and not allowing you to lie to us. By the way, just about every Catholic I know is bilingual and can acutally speak a second langauge. I can speak five, my father could speak 8 and our Bishop can speak 12.

This is simply unfactual as far as I’m aware. I know of no country where the majority of native Syriac speakers are Roman Catholic.

Lebanon, Syrian and Iraq. These countries have populations of Syriac speakers. These people do not speak a reinvented Syriac after having been Arabinized, they have retained their Syriac langauge as their first langauge through all these years, though there is a division in vowel sounds from east to west. Also, recent DNA eveidence tells us that they are a separate ethinic group from the Arab muslims in these countries. This is not conclusive yet but the evidence certainly point in this direction. Of the Syriac speakers, more then 80 percent are Catholic. Now, they are not Roman Catholic but some are. You are pupetuating a slur invented by the Anglos but I will leave you to correct yourself here. Syriac speakers usually belong to the Maronite Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) Syriac Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) Chaldean Catholic Church (in communion with Rome and uses the Peshitta as its New Testament) Syrian Orthodox Church (minority) Ancient Assyrian Church (very small minority) or Assyrian Church of the East (almost in Communion with Rome by begining talks to join the Chaldean Catholic Church.)

If we move the discussion to India where 60% of all Christians are Latin rite Catholics, and we look at the Syriac rite Christians as a whole, more than 60% of them are either Syro-Malabar or Syro-Malankara. They do not speak Syriac as a first language but must learn it as a second language and use it in their Liturgy. Other Syro Christians of India also accept Peter as the Rock, having the authority that Jesus gave him but do not wish to enter into communion based on various reasons from church to church. Usually grevences about the actions of the Portugees which are acknoledged by the Catholic Church and the search for healing has already begun.

If you want to check these numbers just go to the Catholic Near East Welfare Association web site, if you can put your anti-Catholic bias aside to accept internationally accepted numbers published by Catholics that is.

 

[po18guy]

Peter was most likely at Rome, but so was Paul. Being present in Rome does not make one the Bishop of Rome.

"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.

"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.

"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years.

"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.

"From Rome also Paul’s last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, ‘At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me’ (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, ‘Only Luke is with me’ (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

“So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, ‘Only Luke is with me.’”

While it is most likely that Peter visited Rome and was probably martyred there the biblical record testifies that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome while Paul was alive.

This is the fallacy of believing that the bible is everything and contains everything, when even it says clearly that it does not. You kinda forgot church records here. How do we know if you’re baptized or not? If you actually live in the city you claim to? It’s certainly not in the bible! We’d have to check your church records, right?

When all you have of a belief system is the sacred patchwork of recollections which we call the NT, the human mind will fill in the voids with all manner of imaginings. And it has. What about the almost innumerable “other things” that Jesus did? (John 20:30, 21:25) Did they not occur simply because they are not listed in the bible? This would be a ridiculous argument to make.

Since you are denying the very premise of this thread, why not start another thread regarding Peter not being anything special, because that is your firm belief?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Claudius]

Are we looking at the same passages? Matthew 7:24 and Luke 6:48 both use shua, not kepha. Granted, this is from the Peshitta which is not actually an original version, but rather a back-translation from the Greek, but still, it seems very straightforward.

You are confusing Hebrew with Syriac. In Luke he uses the word Shu`wa and in Mathew he uses the word Kepa. Luke is a translation from the Greek. Mathew was originally written in Syriac.

The only place I’m aware of this is where he’s the stone the builders rejected that has become the chief corner stone, where the literary use of a smaller stone makes sense.

I just can not get over how much you protestants have cut out of the Bible. Scan (because I know you can not actually read it) the entire Bible in Syriac and you will find what I am talking about

What? Where do you get this from? That’s like saying stone and mountain are English synonyms – simply untrue.

Again, you are confusing Shuwa with Kepa, you are confusing Syriac with Hebrew. Shuwa is a Hebrew word borrowed into Syriac. Kepa is a Syriac word that is mostly not used in Hebrew but theoretically could be. You have decided that Petra and Petros mean something differen, when in fact they do not, and want to force this distinction onto Syriac but it does not hold. I can say Mount Fuji or Fuji Mountain and they both mean the same thing.

Admittedly I don’t, but I suspect you don’t either.

Ah, but I do. Admittdely it is not my first langauge but I can speak it and am litterate in it and I prefer to read my Bible in it when I am not reading it in Greek or Latin or Slavonic. I rarely read the Bible in Hebrew but I will take up this language study properly come summer.

It does? What gives you that idea? How about John 11:39 – kepha is used to refer to the stone that covered a tomb, which they “took away”. That seems rather movable to me.

If you can pick a rock up and move it around then it is not a Kepa but an AVNA. Calling the stone that covered the tome of Jesus a Kepa adds to the miraculous nature of the resurrection. Besides, if we have faith, we could move even mountians.

Seems to me that you’re the one making claims based on not knowing things. Kepha is not unmovable rock. The rock on which the wise man builds his house is not kepha either. I know of no reason to believe kepha and shua are synonymous. All of these are claims that you’ve made, which are simply false when compared to the most basic logic.

HMM, I read the Bible in Syriac and the foundation is indeed a Kepa. I speak Syriac and they are indeed Synonymous. You want them to mean something different so that your claims can hold water but you are not telling us the truth. Again, you may want to use whatever LOGIC you want to convince yourself that Jesus is or is not God or that the Earth IS or ISNOT round but it will never be the truth because the Truth is that which aligns itself with REALITY. Linguistics and proper exegesis are part of that REALITY.

So Jesus never spoke symbolically?

Our symbols and the symbols given to us by Lord Jesus, blessed be his name, point us to REALITY. The reality of Christianity is that the Catholics Church is the one true Church or Christianity along with Judaism is a false set of religions all together.

So God performs miracles in Orthodox and Protestant churches even though their rituals are not the same?

I have not heard of miracles in Protestant bodies (you are not churches in the proper sense of the word) and even if there were I would hold them suspect as I would even Catholic miracles until evidence is shown. Catholic miracles are recorded and verifiable, protestant ones are not. By the way, Orthodox rituals are not different from Catholic rituals. They are the same. One human wears blue while the other wears red but they are both still human. The difference between Catholic (with Orthodox, Orientals and Assyrians together) and Protestants along with Muslims and even modern day Judaism (not ancient Judaism which changed into the Catholic Churc) is the difference between
a dog and a cat. They are different spicies completely.

Woah there – I never said Christianity makes no sense to me. I also do not reject it. There’s a difference between Christianity and Roman Catholicism, however.

Christianity is Catholicism. Some protestants may perhaps, MAYBE, recieve a valid baptism but if we really sat down to look at what each individual protestant group believes, we would find that less then half of them qualify to be Christians. The word Christian has a set meaning and you are not allowed to change it no matter what you want to call yourself. You have not been anointed with oil, nor have you eaten the actual flesh of Lord Jesus nor have you ever drank his blood. Rejecting Jesus in this way not only makes you a non Christian in the proper sense of the word but specifically means that you Reject Lord Jesus and his saving work for your soul.

I have no malice toward God. I’m really not sure what led you to think that. Should I say that you have malice toward God because you don’t agree with my beliefs? At the very best, it’s uncharitable. But think about it – if I hated God, don’t you think I’d embrace atheism or something like that? Why would I go so far to understand scripture and church history if I had something against God?

I was lead to think this because you stated things that are not true and I have a reasonable impression of you to think that you already knew that what you were saying was not true and that you are bearing false witness against Christians just to slander us and cause people to go away from Lord Jesus and his Church. I suspect you want to study the Bible and Church history so that you can lure not fully educated Catholics away from Jesus. In my personal opinion, though I can not be sure, most protestants are secretly athiest anyway or worship the Bible in place of God. It would actually be better for your soul for you to become an athiest and unlearn all the hate against Catholics that you have so that you can begin your search for God anew and finally come to the truth of Lord Jesus in the Catholic Church without any attachment to sin.

Good – if you want to help me, you should pray, not for me to find the RCC, but for me to find the truth, whatever it may be. Doing otherwise means that you believe yourself infallible. If you think you might be fallible, then there is at least a small possibility that your beliefs of the RCC are wrong. Now, would you really want your prayers to help me get into something that’s wrong?

Instead, rely on God to provide the truth, whatever it may be, to me. That’s what I do. God won’t mess up, but we, as humans, just might.

I do pray for you. I pray that you will find the Truth and that truth is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is infallible because Lord Jesus made it that way unless you deny in your heart that Jesus is God and thus deny that he can make his Church infallible. I as a human am fallible but not the Church. Not when it comes to preaching the Evangelium. We also know that because the Church has never changed a teaching in 2000 years and on all major teachings, the Orthodox, Assyrians and Oriental agree with us. I am here helping to to find the Truth and I am being as sincere and honest with you as I can. You can try to force anti-Catholic meanings into the Greek or Syriac versions of the Bible if you want but it just is not true.

Where did you get the idea that I doubted this? Why would I be here at all, discussing what Christ actually meant, if I didn’t believe he was real?

Many protestants do not believe that Jesus is a real person. Many of them also do not believe that Jesus still has a physical body and is physically present to us. They seek to change his message to what they want it to mean so that they can do what ever they want and not have the Catholic Church telling them it is wrong. Jesus Says STOP SINNING but this is just too far for most protestant. Protestants teach that you can not loose salvation but Jesus says you can. Protestants teach that the Eucharist is just a symbol but Jeus says it is not. Protestants teach that you do not have to confess sins but Jesus says you do. Protestants teach that God the Father has a Physical body like Jesus but Jesus says he does not. Protestants teach that you do not have to be beptized but Jesus says you must. Protestants say that Priest do not have the power to forgive sin or to send the the Lord the Holy Spirit into people But Jesus specifically gave them that power. Protestants by and large treat Jesus as a litterary figure and do not want to have contact with him outside of reading about him in a book. Catholics on the other hand see Jesus, hear Jesus and touch Jesus. He is Flesh and Blood.

Now see, this seemingly-subtle bit is a huge theological point. You’re equating the RCC with “the words of God”. This is where I disagree.

The words that we hear in the Catholic Church are the words from God. Paul even says so. The Catholic Church is also equated by Paul with Christ as the Body of Christ and Christ is THE Word of God. Protestants think that the word of God is a book called the Bible and some have even taken to worshiping it. A true Christain would never do this. The time is coming when the Bible may fall the fate of the Staff with the snake on it in order to prevent idolotry. Even without a Bible, the word of God will still be preached by the Catholic Church, because The Word of God is Lord Jesus and the Catholic Church is His body and bride. May we all be One Flesh as is ordain for us in Heaven and seen for us in the Apocolipse of John

On one last note, you need to ask yourself that is <could you convert to Catholicism once you are shown that it is true?> Is it within the realm of possibility for you? I was once kind of like you when I was younger. I grew up in a violently, VIOLENTLY, anti-Catholic environment and my search for the truth lead me to the Church. Are you here at Catholic Answers because you want to get the truth or are you just here to lead Catholic astray? If you do not see any possiblity that you could ever convert to the One Truch Church established by Lord Jesus then you need to take that to the final conclusion. That conclusion is that you are a closed minded person with a prejudice that you need to get rid of. If you can concieve of joining the Catholic Church then I invite you to pray and use truth. It is in fact a sin to reject the Catholic Church. The guilt of this sin is mitigated in some circumstances because people do not properly know through no fault of their own but you have come here to Catholic Answers. You should be able to figure out what the truth is by the information presented here. Lord Jesus commanded us to Stop Sinning. I invite you to take him up on this in as many aspects of your life as you can and in one area specifically, to Join the Catholic Church and enter full communion with the One Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[po18guy]

You are confusing Hebrew with Syriac. In Luke he uses the word Shu`wa and in Mathew he uses the word Kepa. Luke is a translation from the Greek. Mathew was originally written in Syriac…You should be able to figure out what the truth is by the information presented here. Lord Jesus commanded us to Stop Sinning. I invite you to take him up on this in as many aspects of your life as you can and in one area specifically, to Join the Catholic Church and enter full communion with the One Lord Jesus Christ.

I am but a grain of sand compared to this mountain of a reply. :bowdown: I maintain that millions love the concept of Christ. It is His reality that they have trouble with, as written in John 6:66. His Flesh and Blood have captivated me.

Christ’s peace.

 

[MIZER]

From PC Master:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIZER
Christ didn’t say “but on this rock.” He said “and on this rock.” There is difference. Do you see the difference?

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.

What english translation uses the word “but” in Matthew 16:18 in place of “and?” Do you seek the truth by searching the Bible or not? I don’t think you are seeking the truth at all. You only wish to argue and if you must argue with the Scriptures you will. I believe if Christ was with us in the human form as he was when he spoke these words, you would argue with Him.

What kind of Christianity is that? How do you propose to find the truth if your sytem produces nothing but confusion and argument?

 

[mercygate]

I am but a grain of sand compared to this mountain of a reply. :bowdown: I maintain that millions love the concept of Christ. It is His reality that they have trouble with, as written in John 6:66. His Flesh and Blood have captivated me.

Christ’s peace.

Re: Claudius: WHAT po18guy said! :clapping:

 

[Claudius]

I am but a grain of sand compared to this mountain of a reply. :bowdown: I maintain that millions love the concept of Christ. It is His reality that they have trouble with, as written in John 6:66. His Flesh and Blood have captivated me.

Christ’s peace.

All of this praise is nice but everyone, please check and verify everything that I have said and not just take my word for it. Remeber, we are Catholics, we are always called to a higher standard. We must not just rely on other but must have the answers for ourselves as well. I was just lucky in that this is a topic that I happen to know about.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Because there is NO proof of the passing of “universal authority” to the bishops of Rome.

 

[Claudius]

Because there is NO proof of the passing of “universal authority” to the bishops of Rome.

NO proof you say. But what about the huge mountains of proof and evidence for it?

 

[SCALCO]

Because there is NO proof of the passing of “universal authority” to the bishops of Rome.

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?

 

[Claudius]

Kepha is generally translated as lithos in Greek.
Shu’a is generally translated as petra in Greek.
Kepha being translated as petros is a rather specialized case, probably because lithos isn’t a perfect translation of kepha, and the translators/authors may have thought Simon-Peter to have been more important than simply lithos.

Well now let me see here

Kepha translates into Greek as Petra
Shu’wa also translates into Greek as Petra
Why???
Becaue they are synonymous

Avna translates into Greek as Lithos
Why???
Because it is movable.