Info on SDA

[Protestant101]

Thank you Richard! You have just proven my point. You ignore and reject everything I have said and come up with really lame excuses to cover yourself. Bravo!. I just hope others have read your posts and see what I mean. As for Ellen White, whether you have mentioned her or not makes no difference since her brand of “theology” is so evident in your responses. I, and other non-SDA are wide awake. It is you who have fallen into the trap of following the teachings of men by refusing to listen to, and rejecting, the truth.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I am quite wide awake, thankyou SIR. I see upon cursory examination that your Pope is a man too. Put thee away thine heinous accusations; o ye who doest what thou accusest others of doing.

 

[benidict]

Like I keep saying here; your Pope has said and so have others before him; that we are not a real Church; that unity with us, or anyone else is not ever going to be possible unless we totally bow down to him; and accept his so called authority and doctrine. And it gets worse as we look into it. I have also been personally called “antichrist” on this forum. You should probably get into the habit of putting things in proper perspective before you spread more lies. Ellen White called wrong wrong. She was harder on Adventists than she ever was on Catholics.

the Popes “so called authority”, came directly from Christ and the apostles. according to the Catachism, you would be known as seperated bretheren. just like any other protestant. and the person who called you an antichrist, should be ashamed of themselves. although i will call Ellen G. White a false prophet, i will not call her a fraud and a liar. for the simple reason, i believe she really believed she was having these experiences. partial complex seizure disorder can be a pain. just ask my daughter. but if she starts having the heavenly visions assosiated with them, im not going to run out and start my own congregation. i would instead, ask her to test the spirits, just as it is written in the bible. did Ellen G. White ever test the spirits who supposedly were communicating with her? having read many of her writings years ago, i do not believe i ever read of her doing this. and that in and of itself, would have been and error. Peace

 

[benidict]

Here is a bold faced lie that was spread by your leader, Ellen Gould White. This is a cut-and-paste of what she wrote and the poor grammar is her own**:**

“I [Ellen White] saw all that ‘would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,’ could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope’s, and not God’s Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God’s Sabbath, and keep the Pope’s and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image.”

Source

oh my! wont they be surprised when they get to heaven! i can wait for the apology, lol! peace

 

[benidict]

Hi Richard,

The truth is;

1. the last item Paul mentions in Colossians 2:16 is the word “Sabbaton.” This always refers to the “weekly Shabbat that comes every seven days.” You know which Shabbat that is. This shows vs 16 to be a list of those things Christians are to observe. In vs 17 Paul says these things “are” shadows pointing to the substance Christ. The word “are” comes from the Greek esti which is in the present perfect tense. The things of vs16 still were in effect in Paul’s day. In the New Testament, the annual feasts are referred to by heorte, or heortazo, or by their given names such a Pascha Passover, or Pentecost (Shavuot/Feast of Weeks), or Skenopegia (Feast of Tabernacles). In the New Testament, the annual feasts are never called Sabbaton.

Not all “shadows” ceased at the cross. Only those shadows that were types ceased at the cross. The types that ceased at the cross are discussed in Hebrews 7-10. The types/antitypes are “matched pairs.” Only a “more glorious sacrifice” could end the animal sacrifices; only a “more excellent High Priest” could end the atoning role of the earthly priesthood; only the “true tabernacle not made with hands” could end the role of the earthly sanctuary as the place where atonement happened. Paul does not include Christ’s religious calendar (not the weekly Sabbath, nor the annual festivals) in his listing in Hebrews 7-10 of the types that have met their Antitype.

Those who say the cheirographon dogma of Colossians 2:14 is the Book of the Law (the Law of Moses) generally point to “proofs” such as: 1) the Book of the Law (the Law of Moses) was hand-written, and 2) Deuteronomy 31:26 says that the Book of the Law was to be “a witness against you.” Many things can be hand-written. Even the Ten Commandments were hand-written into the Book of the Law, as recorded in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Moses received from Christ those things that he wrote into the Book of the Law, and it contained both Moral Law items and Ceremonial Law items. Only the “types and shadows” - those things spelled out by Paul in Hebrews 7-10 - that pointed directly to Christ’s sacrifice and His high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary ended at the cross. But Christ’s religious calendar did not end - not the weekly Sabbath, nor the annual festivals. Did the Day of Pentecost “end” at the cross? Read Acts 2. Did the Day of Atonement end at the cross? Think October 22, 1844. Did the Passover lose its meaning? "Then He [Jesus] said to them, 'With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. The “festival” Jesus instituted was a Passover Seder infused with Messianic meaning. We will not be fully out of the Egypt of sin until Christ returns. Did the Feast of Tabernacles end at the cross? “And it shall come to pass that the remnant of the goy [Gentile nations] which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, Yahweh the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.” Zechariah 14:16. This is the Jerusalem which needs not the light of the “luminaries” (vs 6-7), and it is the Jerusalem from which flow “living waters.” (vs 8).

Regarding Deuteronomy 31:26 - look up the Hebrew for “against you” and see what it means.

The items listed in Colossians 2:16 stand or fall together. This includes what we eat and drink (the dietary laws), the annual festivals as determined by the New Moons (lunar calendar) and the weekly seventh-day Shabbat. Man is not to be our judge in these things - only Christ is our judge, and “we ought to obey God rather than man.”

Shalom in Jesus,

Ron

hello my friend. again, i will take comfort in what the apostles taught on these matters in acts. and not be shaken, by those that would attempt to place us under something not even the apostles could keep. their words, not mine. also i prefer the changes Jesus himself made. instead of seeking revenge, ie an eye for an eye, i can now give my enemy a cold glass of water in his name. instead of stoning an adultress, we can now say who condemns you? go and sin no more. the law never taught mercy. ask the two men who were picking up sticks on the sabbath day… oh! thats right! they were stoned to death! you cant! where do you read of the apostles commanding us to stone people, who are in violation of the law of liberty? you dont. and dont bring in annanias and saphira, they had their lives taken by the Lord, for lying to the Holy Spirit. not stones there either. so, if the moral code, as found in the law of Moses is still in force, then the penalties are still in force. so my question is, how big should the rock be, that is thrown to enforce this code? and do we still kill sabbath breakers for picking up sticks?

 

[benidict]

You say

Obviously I don’t agree that Jesus is giving Peter unlimited power, in the above vs. Why? Because this is your opinion. You say this is clear from the above vs. I don’t agree. Why? Because I believe YOUR OPINION of what is being said here is wrong. The purpose of the non-Catholic section of CAF is
Non-Catholic Religions (55 Viewing)
Comparing and contrasting beliefs
You BELIEVE that this is what these vs. are saying. My beliefs align with what Ellen White says in the quote from Desire of Ages. Only she says it much better than I could.

so you admit my friend, that you have given up the authority of the Magesterium, for the authority of Ellen G. White. Correct? Peace

 

[Farsight001]

This from the Council of Laodicea:

"CANON XXIX.

CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."

The council of Laodicea was a regional synod. Regional synods do not have or produce canon. It is nothing more than the personal opinion of whoever said or wrote it. This is why I asked for it’s location in the Catechism, not some random synod.

 

[me_again]

Adventism rest exclusively on it’s leader**:** Ellen Gould White.

When Ellen White is removed from the SDA equation, their sect crumbles.

Nothing bothers a devout Adventist more than to point out Ellen White’s lies, false prophecies and shenanigans because it undermines their entire way of biblical interpretations.

 

[greggy53]

It doesn’t matter what the Jews spoke in Jesus time. The fact is that the translations we have are from Greek not Aramaic. And the petra in Matt. 16:18 is never used to designate Peter. It is used to designate Jesus.

It doesn’t matter what language the Jews spoke…Of course not…It doesn’t matter what was actually said, just what you want them to have said.

Petros is masculine. In Greek
Petra is feminine. In Greek

Jews did not speak Greek. It was the written language of scholars.

Two fatal flaws in your logic.

 

[Protestant101]

Sorry my friend there are two major problems with your analogy.

1. Matthew wrote in Greek and in Greek the word rock petra is feminine. So, Matthew would not have used the feminine word to call a man. He used the masculine instead petros.
2. The Jews of Jesus time did not speak Greek they spoke Aramaic and from what I have read there is only one word in Aramaic for rock, rock.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

It is futile to make the claim that here Jesus is referring to himself when it is obvious that he is talking to and about Simon Peter. Many Protestants try to muddy the waters in order to justify their rebellion against God’s appointed Leaders and His Church; but no matter which way you shake it. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. End of story.

Nothing suggests IN THE TEXT that God could not use the “feminine tense” here; as the main point is the size of the rock. It would be a little strange to get dogmatic over whether a stone is male or female. Peter doesn’t cut it when it comes to the size being refered to here. (of course it remains unproven what you say about the gender tense). Some of the Catholics here accuse Adventists of "building on “man” when referring to Ellen White; yet they claim the same privilege - to be able to build on “man” when referring to Peter or a Pope. So yes; we do “rebel” against that. Jesus can be the only foundation for the Church.

Catholics are right in saying that nothing can prevail against God’s Church; meaning Jesus as the Head; as many Popes have proven throughout history. Popes can fall; Jesus can’t.

 

[greggy53]

Nothing suggests IN THE TEXT that God could not use the “feminine tense” here; as the main point is the size of the rock. It would be a little strange to get dogmatic over whether a stone is male or female. Peter doesn’t cut it when it comes to the size being refered to here. (of course it remains unproven what you say about the gender tense). Some of the Catholics here accuse Adventists of "building on “man” when referring to Ellen White; yet they claim the same privilege - to be able to build on “man” when referring to Peter or a Pope. So yes; we do “rebel” against that. Jesus can be the only foundation for the Church.

Catholics are right in saying that nothing can prevail against God’s Church; meaning Jesus as the Head; as many Popes have proven throughout history. Popes can fall; Jesus can’t.

Matthew would not have called Peter a girl. Jews did not speak greek. In his langauge there was only one word for rock. You can run, but you can’t hide from those two facts.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

It doesn’t matter what language the Jews spoke…Of course not…It doesn’t matter what was actually said, just what you want them to have said.

Petros is masculine. In Greek
Petra is feminine. In Greek

Jews did not speak Greek. It was the written language of scholars.

Two fatal flaws in your logic.

English (KJV) Strong’s Root Form (Greek) Tense
And g1161 δέ de

I say g3004 λέγω legō

also g2504 κἀγώ kagō

unto thee, g4671 σοί soi

That g3754 ὅτι hoti

thou g4771 σύ sy

art g1488 εἶ ei

**Peter, g4074 Πέτρος Petros **

and g2532 καί kai

upon g1909 ἐπί epi

this g5026 ταύτῃ tautē

**rock g4073 πέτρα petra **

I will build g3618 οἰκοδομέω oikodomeō

my g3450 μου mou

church; g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia

and g2532 καί kai

the gates g4439 πύλη pylē

of hell g86 ᾅδης hadēs

shall g2729 κατισχύω katischyō

not g3756 οὐ ou

prevail against g2729 κατισχύω katischyō

it. g846 αὐτός autos

Here’s Matt.16:18 And the Greek from which it was translated along with Stong’s Concordance #'s. Petros is masculine.and petra is feminine. Jesus did speak Aramaic, but the translation that we have is from Greek and this translation is the inspired word of God. So I’m not quite sure what your objection is greggy. I didn’t change anything. This is not what I want it to say. THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS. There must be a reason why in the Greek Matthew has Jesus using petros for Peter and indeed Jesus names Peter this. This word becomes intimately associated not with anyone called Peter, but with Peter the apostle. It becomes the only designation for Peter in the bible. As for Jesus speaking Aramaic, I’m sorry greggy, but please explain what that has to do with the translation from Greek. Are you saying that God could not inspire the Greek, only the Aramaic? I don’t see why this makes any difference.

 

[Protestant101]

Matthew would not have called Peter a girl. Jews did not speak greek. In his langauge there was only one word for rock. You can run, but you can’t hide from those two facts.

Actually; no one is “running.” I am right here dealing with it. Maybe you could tell us now; WHO was being called a girl in this text?

I am off to drywall some ten foot ceilings today by myself. If I survive that, I will look for your answer later tonight. The reason I mentioned what I am doing today is because I imagine it is just about as hard to escape the fact of the size of stone being referred to here. An no. I won’t “run.” I’ll be back.

 

[CatholicLover]

The council of Laodicea was a regional synod. Regional synods do not have or produce canon. It is nothing more than the personal opinion of whoever said or wrote it. This is why I asked for it’s location in the Catechism, not some random synod.

Here’s what I found in the Catechism on the Sabbath and Sunday:

2175 - Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

2176 - The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

2190 - The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation,** has been replaced by Sunday** which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

2191 - The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the “eighth day,” Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day (cf. SC 106).

2192 - **“Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” **(CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).

2193 - "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247).

2194 - The institution of Sunday helps all “to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives” (GS 67 § 3).

2195 - Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.

The intent of these entries is clear. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Sabbath should be kept Holy (as stated in my previous post to which you took exception) and has been replaced by Sunday.

Also, items 2189 - 2195 are presented “In Brief” and I was unable to find the full text anywhere online. Anyone know why that is? Am I just looking in the wrong place?

 

[Javl]

Richard:

Although I disagree with you in your interpretation of scripture and consider you, and all SDA in error bordering on heresy, I do want to say that in our “discussions” I have not acted with any patience ( 2 Tim 4:1-2 ) or Christian charity. For this I wish to apologize and ask your forgiveness. Although we do agree to disagree it is to our detriment not act as Christians in all things. I realize with extreme sadness that I have not. I do hope that you will accept.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[RonTheNewJew]

hello my friend. again, i will take comfort in what the apostles taught on these matters in acts. and not be shaken, by those that would attempt to place us under something not even the apostles could keep. their words, not mine. also i prefer the changes Jesus himself made. instead of seeking revenge, ie an eye for an eye, i can now give my enemy a cold glass of water in his name. instead of stoning an adultress, we can now say who condemns you? go and sin no more. the law never taught mercy. ask the two men who were picking up sticks on the sabbath day… oh! thats right! they were stoned to death! you cant! where do you read of the apostles commanding us to stone people, who are in violation of the law of liberty? you dont. and dont bring in annanias and saphira, they had their lives taken by the Lord, for lying to the Holy Spirit. not stones there either. so, if the moral code, as found in the law of Moses is still in force, then the penalties are still in force. so my question is, how big should the rock be, that is thrown to enforce this code? and do we still kill sabbath breakers for picking up sticks?

Hi Ben,
First, let me say that those who were stoned because they carried a stick of wood of a certain length during the Sabbath, were stoned illegally. I mean that carrying a stick of wood was no big deal to Christ. Nor was a stone of a certain weight or more. Later regulations about which shoe you put on first. Or, carrying a too-heavy cloth, etc. during the Sabbath, which to satisfy the rabbi’s, would be merely attached to one’s clothing rather than carried in the hand. Jesus stood up to all of these. The regulation that allowed a young man to forswear title to his parents’ home to the Temple, and allowed him then to take his parents’ home away from them at the time he covenented with the Temple priests, was one that angered Jesus the most. The reason? None of those regulations was part of the Law God the Son spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai!

Those added regulations were all “heavy burdens laid upon the people.” Jesus then went on to say, In vain they (the rabbi’s, and Pharisees, etc.) do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Yet, in other places when He was asked questions usually meant to try to trip Him up, He would say, “What sayest the Law of Moses.” The Talmudic Mishna writings of the sayings of the “sages,” were the ones created by the religious leaders to make big names for themelves, and to encourage attitudes of rebellion against the limits of the very written Law that Moses had received from God the Son, Himself.

Man’s laws versus God’s Law seems to have been the real issue all along.

Shalom in Yeshua

 

[Javl]

Here’s what I found in the Catechism on the Sabbath and Sunday:

2175 - Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

2176 - The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

2190 - The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation,** has been replaced by Sunday** which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

2191 - The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the “eighth day,” Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day (cf. SC 106).

2192 - **“Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” **(CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).

2193 - "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247).

2194 - The institution of Sunday helps all “to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives” (GS 67 § 3).

2195 - Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.

The intent of these entries is clear. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Sabbath should be kept Holy (as stated in my previous post to which you took exception) and has been replaced by Sunday.

Also, items 2189 - 2195 are presented “In Brief” and I was unable to find the full text anywhere online. Anyone know why that is? Am I just looking in the wrong place?

Whether or not you accept it, Jesus gave His Church, through Peter, full the authority to “bind and loose”. With this authority, when the Christians were thrown out of the syanagogues for preaching Jesus, the early Church declared Sunday as “the Lord’s Day” and as the Christian Sabbath. It also removed itself from under restrictions from the Law of the Jews. ( the Catholic Church has never rejected the Jewish Sabbath, or the Law ).

For the full text of the items you have listed you will find them, as far as I know of, only in a copy of the published Catechism of the Catholic Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Hi Ben,
First, let me say that those who were stoned because they carried a stick of wood of a certain length during the Sabbath, were stoned illegally. I mean that carrying a stick of wood was no big deal to Christ. Nor was a stone of a certain weight or more. Later regulations about which shoe you put on first. Or, carrying a too-heavy cloth, etc. during the Sabbath, which to satisfy the rabbi’s, would be merely attached to one’s clothing rather than carried in the hand. Jesus stood up to all of these. The regulation that allowed a young man to forswear title to his parents’ home to the Temple, and allowed him then to take his parents’ home away from them at the time he covenented with the Temple priests, was one that angered Jesus the most. The reason? None of those regulations was part of the Law God the Son spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai!

Those added regulations were all “heavy burdens laid upon the people.” Jesus then went on to say, In vain they (the rabbi’s, and Pharisees, etc.) do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Yet, in other places when He was asked questions usually meant to try to trip Him up, He would say, “What sayest the Law of Moses.” The Talmudic Mishna writings of the sayings of the “sages,” were the ones created by the religious leaders to make big names for themelves, and to encourage attitudes of rebellion against the limits of the very written Law that Moses had received from God the Son, Himself.

Man’s laws versus God’s Law seems to have been the real issue all along.

Shalom in Yeshua

From what I have been able to read of the Mishna, the mitzvahs, etc., that although many were written to make a name for the author, they are mostly based in scripture. Some rabbis reject them, others accept them without question. One Rebbe that I spoke with says that almost all are incomplete in their meaning. I guess it depends upon what rabbi you speak with, and to what school of theology he belongs to. It can be confusing.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:

Although I disagree with you in your interpretation of scripture and consider you, and all SDA in error bordering on heresy,

An accusation along with your apology? I would ask you to back track and find the exact post and/or posts that you consider “bordering on heresy” and if you can show me where I am wrong in my exegesis through the bible and the bible alone, I will apologise profusely. If you can’t do that you need to accept them.

I do want to say that in our “discussions” I have not acted with any patience ( 2 Tim 4:1-2 ) or Christian charity. For this I wish to apologize and ask your forgiveness. Although we do agree to disagree it is to our detriment not act as Christians in all things. I realize with extreme sadness that I have not. I do hope that you will accept.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Of coarse I accept your apology. The cross of Christ demands it and my salvation hinges on it. Matt.6:14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

 

[Javl]

An accusation along with your apology? I would ask you to back track and find the exact post and/or posts that you consider “bordering on heresy” and if you can show me where I am wrong in my exegesis through the bible and the bible alone, I will apologise profusely. If you can’t do that you need to accept them.

To we Catholics the denial of Jesus giving the Church His authority and the denial of the Church to bind and loose, plus the denial of the primacy of the pope, means the denial of Jesus and His truths. This to us is heresy. I know you will not accept this, but the Biblical passages that proclaim these truths are not symbolic or analgous, they are literal.

Of coarse I accept your apology. The cross of Christ demands it and my salvation hinges on it. Matt.6:14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Thank you for your kindness.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

English (KJV) Strong’s Root Form (Greek) Tense
And g1161 δέ de

I say g3004 λέγω legō

also g2504 κἀγώ kagō

unto thee, g4671 σοί soi

That g3754 ὅτι hoti

thou g4771 σύ sy

art g1488 εἶ ei

**Peter, g4074 Πέτρος Petros **

and g2532 καί kai

upon g1909 ἐπί epi

this g5026 ταύτῃ tautē

**rock g4073 πέτρα petra **

I will build g3618 οἰκοδομέω oikodomeō

my g3450 μου mou

church; g1577 ἐκκλησία ekklēsia

and g2532 καί kai

the gates g4439 πύλη pylē

of hell g86 ᾅδης hadēs

shall g2729 κατισχύω katischyō

not g3756 οὐ ou

prevail against g2729 κατισχύω katischyō

it. g846 αὐτός autos

Here’s Matt.16:18 And the Greek from which it was translated along with Stong’s Concordance #'s. Petros is masculine.and petra is feminine. Jesus did speak Aramaic, but the translation that we have is from Greek and this translation is the inspired word of God. So I’m not quite sure what your objection is greggy. I didn’t change anything. This is not what I want it to say. THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS. There must be a reason why in the Greek Matthew has Jesus using petros for Peter and indeed Jesus names Peter this. This word becomes intimately associated not with anyone called Peter, but with Peter the apostle. It becomes the only designation for Peter in the bible. As for Jesus speaking Aramaic, I’m sorry greggy, but please explain what that has to do with the translation from Greek. Are you saying that God could not inspire the Greek, only the Aramaic? I don’t see why this makes any difference.

Putting my :twocents: in: it is known that the Apostles did not speak Greek, but Aramaic, and maybe Hebrew ( compare Spanish and Italian ). Jesus called the Apostle Simon bar Jonah “Kephas” in Aramaic. One of the meanings of this noun is “rock”. Therefore, Simon bar Jonah is the “rock” ( Kephas ) on which He will build His Church.

In translating from Aramaic to Greek ( Koine ), “Kephas” would become “petras”, which is a feminine noun. We know that Simon bar Johna was not a woman, so to make “rock” in Greek fit in, it was changed to “petros”. The closest English or European translation is Peter ( Pietro, Pietor, Pedro, etc. ). If we translate “Kephas” to the same languages we would get the same results.

The gist is that Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to Kephas because He Knew that Peter would be a rock for the other Apostles and the early believers to lean or depend on, which he had proven to be in the book of Acts. If all this is not so, then why did Jesus change Simon’s name?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem