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

[PC_Master]

Claudius> I’ll get around to replying at some point – I need to check some specifics first, but we should remember that Syriac, specifically the Peshitta, is a translation from Greek. Most modern scholarship (that I’ve read) affirms this. Admittedly, there is some minority opinion that this is not the case, most notably with Matthew, but I don’t find the position tenable. Claims are tossed about from both sides as to things that indicate one language version was translated from the other, but most scholarship still hold to Greek primacy. Manuscript evidence certainly supports it.

There are a few other errors in your methodology which I’m aware of, but I don’t want to start explaining them without further research into the matter, which may take a while, since I don’t natively speak a language other than English (I’m a computer geek, not a linguist). I was actually hoping for some citation of sources from you, because thus far none of your claims have been within my grasp in terms of evidence. I guess I’ll muddle through the best I can.

Also, somewhere in here someone mentioned that Christ renamed Peter on the spot at Caesarea Philippi, indicating a change in role. I tend to think that, due to his stubborn nature and boldness, he had the nickname previously (such as is indicated by the gospel of Mark), and that made a great basis for comparison. James and John may have had their nickname also, though I’m unsure as to what it actually would signify. To me, the location of this conversation just seems to obvious to have been uninvolved in the conversation.

In the mean time, I think Edwin has summed it up nicely – accepting that Peter is the rock does not establish the papacy, nor papal succession. Thus, accepting Peter as the rock is quite possible without becoming a Roman Catholic. One simply can assume Peter’s role was unique, for example, not to be passed on. Or, one can assume that Peter was a representative of all true believers (Origen, among others, takes this view). For Peter’s “rockness” to necessitate the papacy, you have to believe that this was a role that was passed on, meaning you must also accept a 1:1 apostolic succession of this role.

 

[kaycee]

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.
Edwin

Another huge hurdle that I cant overcome is how today’s traditionalists maintain that the papacy existed from day 1, however the ECF’s are all over the map on Matt 16:18; Christ is the Rock, The confession of Christ is the Rock, Peter is the Rock. The claims that the Church from the beginning knew Peter as the Pope (modern day) is demostrably false. The Claims by Trent that the ECF’s were unanimous in their Papal beliefs is also demostrably false. The Cardinal Newman development argument seems to be in direct contradiction with the Traditionalists. Not sure how they can co-exist without watering down the anathemas from various councils.

If Peter is the rock, that would certainly not translate to successors, since Peter is in heaven and Jesus mentioned no one else as being the Rock, I personally think it was Peter’s confession, which is in fact the Gospel itself, essentially.

How does one become a stone in the “building” of the Church? The confession that Jesus is Lord and Savior!

The argument resorting to Aramaic also strikes me as an implied claim that the Greek is not inspired (doesnt say what we want so lets try a possible scenario that does).

 

[Thing]

(doesnt say what we want so lets try a possible scenario that does).

 

[po18guy]

Claudius> I’ll get around to replying at some point – I need to check some specifics first, but we should remember that Syriac, specifically the Peshitta, is a translation from Greek. Most modern scholarship (that I’ve read) affirms this. Admittedly, there is some minority opinion that this is not the case, most notably with Matthew, but I don’t find the position tenable. Claims are tossed about from both sides as to things that indicate one language version was translated from the other, but most scholarship still hold to Greek primacy. Manuscript evidence certainly supports it.

There are a few other errors in your methodology which I’m aware of, but I don’t want to start explaining them without further research into the matter, which may take a while, since I don’t natively speak a language other than English (I’m a computer geek, not a linguist). I was actually hoping for some citation of sources from you, because thus far none of your claims have been within my grasp in terms of evidence. I guess I’ll muddle through the best I can.

Also, somewhere in here someone mentioned that Christ renamed Peter on the spot at Caesarea Philippi, indicating a change in role. I tend to think that, due to his stubborn nature and boldness, he had the nickname previously (such as is indicated by the gospel of Mark), and that made a great basis for comparison. James and John may have had their nickname also, though I’m unsure as to what it actually would signify. To me, the location of this conversation just seems to obvious to have been uninvolved in the conversation.

In the mean time, I think Edwin has summed it up nicely – accepting that Peter is the rock does not establish the papacy, nor papal succession. Thus, accepting Peter as the rock is quite possible without becoming a Roman Catholic. One simply can assume Peter’s role was unique, for example, not to be passed on. Or, one can assume that Peter was a representative of all true believers (Origen, among others, takes this view). For Peter’s “rockness” to necessitate the papacy, you have to believe that this was a role that was passed on, meaning you must also accept a 1:1 apostolic succession of this role.

All well and good. But, look at the form of the early church, and its functioning. Words are easily mis-translated and their meaning becomes distorted by time and culteral influences. The organization, beliefs and practices of the early church fill in the gaps where scripture is deficient to explain.

Recall also that we rely much more (some, exclusively) on scripture than they did. Since the main players were still alive, oral teaching in the manner of Christ was used. Thus, so much of what was, has been lost to scripture, but retained in Sacred Tradition.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

I hear you. I am simply pointing out that Mt. 16:18 is a very important first link in the chain of logic that leads to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. I’m not denying that more work needs to be done once it has been established that Peter is the rock.

Obviously, a lot of non-Catholics also recognize the importance of Mt. 16:18…which is why they seek to explain it away so frequently and so passionately.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**At least three ECF’s within the first two centuries understood Apostolic succession.

---

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of 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 with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

 

[Randy_Carson]

For Peter’s “rockness” to necessitate the papacy, you have to believe that this was a role that was passed on, meaning you must also accept a 1:1 apostolic succession of this role.

To answer the question of whether an apostolic church still exists, we need to look at a passage from Matthew, and as we do, we will begin to see just how closely the concepts of authority, infallibility and apostolic succession are tied together.

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ “ (Matthew 28:18-19)

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

“But,” some people might argue, “the promise of the Holy Spirit was given while Jesus was still on earth. What assurance do we have that the Church would have this same authority after Jesus had ascended into heaven?”

In John, we find the answer to this question:

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:25-26)

“But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)

Yes, Jesus was speaking while still with the Apostles; however, he also promises that the Holy Spirit would be sent to them after He ascends to the Father. “But wait,” some will say, “this only applies to the original Apostles while they were still alive. After the death of the last Apostle, the Spirit would no longer be with the church. That is why we have the Bible.” Let’s examine further what Jesus said:

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the church forever. Jesus also said,

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)

How could He fulfill this promise if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle? Clearly, Jesus must have intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

It is through the office of Apostle, and not through the individual Apostles themselves, that Jesus established and maintains His authority in the Church. Let us consider the Word of God:

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28)

From this, we can see that God established the position of Apostle in the Church along with that of prophet and teacher among others. Jesus did not command his disciples to “go, therefore, write books, and let everyone decide for themselves what is true”. No! The mission of the Apostles, the mission of the Church, was to teach, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, etc. Making disciples of all nations would take time. Therefore, God established the office of Apostle in the church, but He never says anything about this being for the first couple of centuries only. He never says “until you can get the New Testament written and canonized.” The Church is still with us, so there must still be successors of the Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ, and these current “Apostles” or Bishops must still have the same authority that was entrusted to the original Twelve and passed down. This is called, “Apostolic Succession.”

 

[MIZER]

Boy, oh Boy,

You guys are nuttier than I am. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such long posting going back and forth on any issue of religion which may divide us. I am very impressed with the knowlege and patience of the Catholics on this board and I’m even more impressed that the thread just keeps going and going and going.

PC Master,

If we follow your train of thought on any of this then in order for us normal, regular, very busy people to know the truth, we would have to quit our day jobs, say goodbye to our families and hole up in a moseleum somewhere with the best linguistics library available in the world and study the bible. Of course that would follow our aquiring a PHD in several ancient languages and cultures.

Just looking at this from a logical stand point, do you not think that Jesus would have made it a little easier for us to learn the truth of revelation while maintaining our existance and family life on this planet?

Why do you think he said he would build His church in the first place? Was it so you could argue with true christians into oblivion, never really proving what you are to believe?

How do you prove that the Bible is true? How do you prove the existence of one God in Threee Persons? How do you even fully understand the mystery of the Trinity? The truth is, you can’t. It’s not possible. The trinity is simply a mystery we believe, on faith. That’s what faith is. Is it not? Isn’t faith believing in something we can’t prove or see?

Throughtout the old testament, God gave HIS children, HIS precious lambs, a shephard (in the form of a man of HIS own choosing) to nurture, teach, protect and guide HIS children on their journey. Why, why, why, in a million years, why on Earth do you think HE suddenly left us without that gift? It just doesn’t make sense that we would send HIS only begotten son to be the final sacrifice and then leave us with no earthly shephard to guide HIS children in the same manner HE had done for hundred’s of years before. And you want to argue about Kepa verses shua verses small stone, verses this mountain over there, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Come out of your denial. Christ gave us the most precious gift in the world, His own flesh and blood wraped in the most beautiful religion imaginable and you are missing it. You are wasting time, the only commodity we really have on this earth and you are throwing it away because you, PC Master are a person of little faith and great big, useless, arguments.

All you have to do to see the truth, the beautiful truth, in it’s fullness, is apply what you know in your own heart and soul about the Father and use reason and logic as you read the sacred text. Realize that Jesus did not leave us orphans, that He is here, with us today, present in the Blessed sacraments of his one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. All you have to do is have a little faith, and the proof will come to you in droves.

The Catholics on this board have given you more than ample evidence, more than enough information for you to start embracing the proof you’ve been offered. The only thing standing in your way is your own free will and through it, and it alone, you refuse to see. How very, very sad…My heart aches for you.

 

[po18guy]

Boy, oh Boy,

You guys are nuttier than I am. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such long posting going back and forth on any issue of religion which may divide us. I am very impressed with the knowlege and patience of the Catholics on this board and I’m even more impressed that the thread just keeps going and going and going.

The Catholics on this board have given you more than ample evidence, more than enough information for you to start embracing the proof you’ve been offered. The only thing standing in your way is your own free will and through it, and it alone, you refuse to see. How very, very sad…My heart aches for you.

Amen! It occurs to me that some people are willing to risk just about anything, including going to hell, to avoid confronting the fact that Christ founded one church, which still exists, and which requires obedience, just as Christ Himself does.

This world is going to get very ugly before we again have unity in Christ.

 

[Claudius]

we should remember that Syriac, specifically the Peshitta, is a translation from Greek. Most modern scholarship (that I’ve read) affirms this. Admittedly, there is some minority opinion that this is not the case, most notably with Matthew, but I don’t find the position tenable. Claims are tossed about from both sides as to things that indicate one language version was translated from the other, but most scholarship still hold to Greek primacy. Manuscript evidence certainly supports it.

We are talking about Matthew Chapter 16 verse 18. Everyone already knows that the rest of the New Testament is a translation from Greek into Syriac. However, as a linguist, language teacher and translator I am fully aware of what “marks of translation” look like. If the Syriac is a translation from the Greek, it is a really, really, really bad translation. There are entire phrases that are just left out, word order is way off and we have a few places where the translators just couldn’t be bothered to look up alternate words so they translated different words from Greek into the same word in Syriac. If the Syriac Matthew is a translation, it is a slap in the face to the Greek version. It also shows places that are very clear where the Greek is unclear, suggesting that they imposed their own theology onto the document.

However, should the Greek be a translation of the Syriac, or that they both be independent recordings of the preaching of Matthew (the most likely explanation) then the differences are understandable and fall within the accepted limits of Marks of Translation. We also need to remember that the Syriac Matthew does not bear the marks of translation but the Greek Matthew does in many places. Mark only bears them in the places where it agrees with Matthew, John only bears them in style and Luke only bears them in direct quotes. We know that Luke was originaly written in Greek. That is not at issue. We know that John and Mark were most probably written in Greek, but again, not at issue with Matthew chapter 16 verse 18. Even more still, no matter with version was the original or even if they both are original, the grammar of both langauges requires that Lord Jesus is talking about Peter.

Matthew: originally written or at least preached in Syriac in the lavant
Mark: written in Egypt in Greek using some form of Syriac source that probably originated from Matthew.
Luke: Written north of the lavant, possibly even in Greece written in Greek by a Greek native speaker in a schalorly style
John: composition location largely unknown but probably not in Greece. It is written in Greek but someone who is definatly not a native speaker of Greek. My staff and I have had discussions about this book. Some of us think that it was written by a 7C level speaker while other say that it could be higher, even as high as 5D. Others have pointed out that even though the vocabulary clearly suggest a non native speaker, the mastery and beauty of the text suggest that a guiness was at work.

 

[Claudius]

There are a few other errors in your methodology which I’m aware of, but I don’t want to start explaining them without further research into the matter, which may take a while, since I don’t natively speak a language other than English (I’m a computer geek, not a linguist). I was actually hoping for some citation of sources from you, because thus far none of your claims have been within my grasp in terms of evidence. I guess I’ll muddle through the best I can.

The source that I would most like to site and I really hope you get around to reading it is Matthew Chapter 16 verse 18.

You want me to site a source but if I do you accuse me of giving you a canned answer. You want me to not site all the people who have been sited already but want me to give you ?what?.. Oh, a protestant source that is not telling the truth. You then say, “why don’t any of you do your own reasearch?” but I have and you refuse to accept it from me. This is becoming akin to when Clinton said “that depends on what the meaning of Is Is.”

We all need to remember that this is not very hard stuff. It is one sentence. Admittidly, it has four verbs in it but that is not so tough. We are not translating Cicero here, we are translating a very simple, and easy sentence to understand that is written almost in English Word order. Just within this one sentence, the grammar demands that we understand it the way the Catholic Church has understood it for centuries. Another way just is not possible and still be grammatically correct. Then when we look at the sentence just before and just after the sentence in question, we are given further proof well above and beyond what any reasonable person would require. The only way to look at this sentence and not take it at face value is because you NEED a reason to persist in sin. You need the Catholic Church to be wrong and so you look to come up with a theory, any theory, (anything Please!!!) so that the Catholic Church possibly might, maybe, be wrong. You want to find the tiny, smallest of unreasonable chances that the Catholic Church is wrong so that you can climb into a Hole and not have to think.

I can already tell that you really just want the Syriac Matthew to just go away, (don’t come any closer with that lighter) so I will just mention that I have yet to find a version of Matthew in Syriac that had even one letter different from another. If you know of two that disagree, let me know. I will now focus on the Greek, since it seems this is what you want to hinde your arguement on but also because it is a slam dunk.

It is unreasonable and grammatically wrong for Tayte to be refering to anything accept Peter. It is unreasonable and grammatically wrong for Tayte Te to be used here to not mean “The Same”. Scholars and translators are fully willing to translate the other instances of this idiom as “the same” but not in this one sentence. Tayte can not be here used to mean “you” because then it would have to be male but clearly it is not. The verb that governs the word Tayte is subordinate to the previously stated verb.

So here is my methodology, which is simple: I read the sentence. I believe that the sentence means what it says. Case closed. The sentence says in English from the Greek

"Also but to you I say you are Rock and on the same rock I will build my Church…

Here it is in Greek so that we can all be on the same page.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Here is what the grammar looks like.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω

(this is the main sentence. The rest of the sentence is acting like a direct object to this. This means that Jesus was talking to Peter and ONLY Peter even if others could hear the conversaiton.)

ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος,

(This part is easy right…)

καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ

(This is the part that has us all in an uproar. This is an adverbial phrase of the next verb which is subordinate to the main verb.)

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,

(this is the verb that governs the part in dispute and its direct object)

καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

(usually no problems here right…)

So my methodology is simple, the sentence says “κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.” and I think that it means “κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.”

Let me see if I can take a guess your methodology.

1: We need the Catholic Church to be wrong so that we don’t have to join.
2: Yah but how are we going to prove that?
1: If the Papacy is wrong then it is all wrong right… so we will just attack the Papacy.
2: But the Bible has Jesus establishing his Church on Peter, how can we possibly get around that?
1: Simple, we will tell people that the sentence doesn’t mean what it says. We will tell them that it means something else.
2: But the sentence says “κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.” We will never be able to convince people that says something different, all they have to do is look it up on the internet and read it.
1: I know that, but most people don’t know Greek so as long as we all are in this together and keep our mouths shut it will only be the Catholics telling people to read the Greek and we can just call them liars and people will believe it because that is what they want to believe. Greek is an inflexted langauge and English speakers are locked into word order, trust me and just go with it.
2: But people are still able to clearly see that the Greeks words used are “κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.”
1: That is ok, they can’t understand it anyway and we will just give them a translation as if it really said “κἀγὼ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ μονον πέτρος, δέ υμιν λέγω ἐπὶ εκεινω ορω οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, δέ πύλαι ᾅδου * κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.” That way we can claim that Jesus didn’t say Kepa twice in Syriac and instead said Kepa… Shu’wa.
2: But people will know that ορω is wrong and besides it is masculine and destroys our gender arguement.
1: We aren’t going to show them the reworked Greek, we will continue to show them the actual Greek but we will give them a translation based of the reworked Greek and it will work because no one will be smart enough to catch us.
2: But all of this just is not honest, I am not sure if I can go along with it…
1: Look just shut up, or do you want to have to submit to the Catholic Church, those bunch of race mixers.
2:No
1: Do you want to have to give up your mistress and confess your sins and always do what it right?
2: No
1: Then keep your mouth shut and we just might pull this off and we can sin as much as we want and still be called Christians.
2: OK (sign of defeat)

Here is a new flash for everyone out there. Even if the word used was not Petra, it actually could have been any word at all, Tayte will always require that it is talking about Peter. You have to remove this word from the sentence in order to come to any other conclusion. No honest person will ever, EVER, conclude that it does not refer to Peter. So unless Jesus was speaking Getto or his words were just “Too beautiful to Understand” then you have to take the sentence at face value. That face value clearly says with ZERO room for reinterpretation that Peter is the ROCK on which the Church is BUILT.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The only way to look at this sentence and not take it at face value is because you NEED a reason to persist in sin. You need the Catholic Church to be wrong and so you look to come up with a theory, any theory, (anything Please!!!) so that the Catholic Church possibly might, maybe, be wrong. You want to find the tiny, smallest of unreasonable chances that the Catholic Church is wrong so that you can climb into a Hole and not have to think.

I have to say, PC, that I’m with Claudius on this one (though I wouldn’t say that you’re not interested in persisting in sin per se; you want to persist in rebellion against the Catholic Church - which is not exactly the same thing). You seem desperate, almost frantic, to find excuses to avoid the obvious.

What is it that keeps you here in the forum posting an average of three times a day for the better part of a year?

Perhaps you are not unlike another man who opposed the Church with great energy before he finally accepted the truth and became a Catholic:

Acts 26:14
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

 

[PC_Master]

I find it interesting that if someone doesn’t accept the Roman Catholic position here, they’re accused of persisting in sin and/or being stubborn and/or being rebellious. The conclusion – “we believe that anyone who honestly looks at things will agree with us, and anyone who disagrees is just not looking at things”. Thus you’re implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) accusing all non-Roman-Catholics of being against God. That’s simply based on the premise that you cannot possibly be wrong.

The biggest problem here for me is this – I’m not an expert in Greek or Syriac, so you could feed me a complete pack of lies and I might not be able to tell the difference. Given that your goal is solely to put forth the Roman Catholic position, I can’t just simply trust that you know what you’re talking about, but that’s precisely what I’m being asked to do – trust that Claudius is an expert (self-claimed it seems – I don’t know who he really is or what his credentials are) and accept his interpretation without further information. No sources, no reference material, etc.

Anyway, I may have some information from a Greek guru in a week or so, depending on if he has time to deal with this or not.

(By the way, I think I’ve explained this before, but just to be clear, my main reason for disbelief in the papacy has very little to do with Matthew 16, but a lot to do with the overall structure of the New Testament and other antique church writings.)

Until I can find some supporting material for Claudius’ claims, I guess I’m out.

 

[Alethiaphile]

There is much more involved in the contemporary western Catholic claims about the papacy than merely that Peter was “the Rock” spoken of by Christ. Eastern Orthodox can believe that Peter was “the Rock”, but still believe that the authority given to Peter went to all the apostles, and indeed to the entire Church. St. Cyprian of Carthge, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine, to mention western Fathers, stated that. Joe

 

[ronyodish]

In the Aramaic-speaking Church of the East (Chaldean and Assyrian), we’ve always referred to Simon as Mar Shim’on Kepa (also pronounced Keepa), which means St. Simon the Rock.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. He told Simon: You are rock and on this rock I will build my Church.

ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ

God bless,

Rony

 

[JRKH]

(Snip)

The biggest problem here for me is this – I’m not an expert in Greek or Syriac, so you could feed me a complete pack of lies and I might not be able to tell the difference.

Do you honestly believe that Claudius would take so much time to post so much grammatical data in such detail just to “feed you a pack of lies”?
I mean Seriously now…

Given that your goal is solely to put forth the Roman Catholic position, I can’t just simply trust that you know what you’re talking about, but that’s precisely what I’m being asked to do – trust that Claudius is an expert (self-claimed it seems – I don’t know who he really is or what his credentials are) and accept his interpretation without further information. No sources, no reference material, etc.

I would say that that the credibility knife can cut both ways.
I am no grammatical scholar at all, but I tend to believe that I posess, at least a modicum of common sense.
The Passage at the heart of this discussion has been interpreted, consistantly as equalling Peter since the earliest days of the Church, and whether or not one agrees with the “primacy of Rome”, it seems silly to belabor the grammatcial meaning of this passage.
Apply common sense.

Peace
James

 

[MIZER]

PC Master says:

Thus you’re implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) accusing all non-Roman-Catholics of being against God. That’s simply based on the premise that you cannot possibly be wrong.

DUH!!!

What’s this web site called again? Oh CATHOLIC ANSWERS.

Would you be happier if we gave you wrong answers? Please don’t hate us because we tell you the truth.

 

[MIZER]

PC Master, you hit on the crux of the problem, not only for yourself but for ever non-catholic christian out there.

The biggest problem here for me is this – I’m not an expert in Greek or Syriac, so you could feed me a complete pack of lies and I might not be able to tell the difference. Given that your goal is solely to put forth the Roman Catholic position, I can’t just simply trust that you know what you’re talking about, but that’s precisely what I’m being asked to do – trust that Claudius is an expert (self-claimed it seems – I don’t know who he really is or what his credentials are) and accept his interpretation without further information. No sources, no reference material, etc.

This is why Jesus said He would build His church. So you wouldn’t have to be an expert in anything to come to the knowlege of the truth. All you have to do is “hear the church” and you will hear the living voice of God. All it takes is faith in Christ and trust in the promises He made. It’s simple really. Terrifiying I know, but simple.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The biggest problem here for me is this – I’m not an expert in Greek or Syriac, so you could feed me a complete pack of lies and I might not be able to tell the difference. Given that your goal is solely to put forth the Roman Catholic position, I can’t just simply trust that you know what you’re talking about, but that’s precisely what I’m being asked to do – trust that Claudius is an expert (self-claimed it seems – I don’t know who he really is or what his credentials are) and accept his interpretation without further information. No sources, no reference material, etc.

But isn’t that kinda what you’re asking us to do?

Believe in this shu’a hooey when you have no credentials or references to back up your claim?

 

[po18guy]

We are talking about Matthew Chapter 16 verse 18. Everyone already knows that the rest of the New Testament is a translation from Greek into Syriac. However, as a linguist, language teacher and translator I am fully aware of what “marks of translation” look like. If the Syriac is a translation from the Greek, it is a really, really, really bad translation. There are entire phrases that are just left out, word order is way off and we have a few places where the translators just couldn’t be bothered to look up alternate words so they translated different words from Greek into the same word in Syriac. If the Syriac Matthew is a translation, it is a slap in the face to the Greek version. It also shows places that are very clear where the Greek is unclear, suggesting that they imposed their own theology onto the document.

However, should the Greek be a translation of the Syriac, or that they both be independent recordings of the preaching of Matthew (the most likely explanation) then the differences are understandable and fall within the accepted limits of Marks of Translation. We also need to remember that the Syriac Matthew does not bear the marks of translation but the Greek Matthew does in many places. Mark only bears them in the places where it agrees with Matthew, John only bears them in style and Luke only bears them in direct quotes. We know that Luke was originaly written in Greek. That is not at issue. We know that John and Mark were most probably written in Greek, but again, not at issue with Matthew chapter 16 verse 18. Even more still, no matter with version was the original or even if they both are original, the grammar of both langauges requires that Lord Jesus is talking about Peter.

Matthew: originally written or at least preached in Syriac in the lavant
Mark: written in Egypt in Greek using some form of Syriac source that probably originated from Matthew.
Luke: Written north of the lavant, possibly even in Greece written in Greek by a Greek native speaker in a schalorly style
John: composition location largely unknown but probably not in Greece. It is written in Greek but someone who is definatly not a native speaker of Greek. My staff and I have had discussions about this book. Some of us think that it was written by a 7C level speaker while other say that it could be higher, even as high as 5D. Others have pointed out that even though the vocabulary clearly suggest a non native speaker, the mastery and beauty of the text suggest that a guiness was at work.

Let’s “reverse engineer” the scriptures from the shape and direction of the early church, if we must. It then clearly supports the Syriac version of Matthew 16:!8. Christ would have had to suffer from ADD to be speaking all over the map as some insist - first renaming Simon bar Jonah into Kepa, then turning and indicating a massive rock structure nearby, then mumbling something about keys, then diverting attention to binding and loosing. Nonsense!

Christ told Peter his future, that he would be bound and lead where he did not want to go. Who’s the other whose future He told? Judas. Peter - 195 times named in NT. Only Peter walked on water. Peter raised the dead. Peter’s healings were individually recorded in Acts. And Peter wrote none of it!

To argue otherwise is to postulate that, in spite of all of the early heresies, in spite of all the divisions, in spite of the extreme logistical and communication difficulties, the “truth” about Matthew 16 was somehow cleverly suppressed, only to be miraculously revealed 1.500 years later? This is the ranting of psychosis!