Jesus's prayer that they be one?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rien

Guest
I should know this but can’t recall it. What is the verse?

And the verse about establishing Peter as Rock?

Thanks.
 
It’s John17:11 and following.

The rock is Matthew 16:18
 
The verse says Peter is /petros/ “a piece of rock”. Jesus is /petra/ “rock”, on which Peter himself was built._Saint Augustine. Jesus said that himself was the corner-stone._Matt.21.42. Paul agrees, and the apostles together are built as stones._Eph. 2.20.
 
chimera said:
The verse says Peter is /petros/ “a piece of rock”. Jesus is /petra/ “rock”, on which Peter himself was built._Saint Augustine. Jesus said that himself was the corner-stone._Matt.21.42. Paul agrees, and the apostles together are built as stones._Eph. 2.20.
Click to expand...
Where does “petros” mean a piece of rock? Where does “petros” mean anything other than “rock” - especially when you consider that Jesus is speaking Aramaic, as evidenced by the words, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah” a clearly Aramaic term. The word Jesus would have used would have been Kepha; again Rock, not piece of rock.

You may want to examine all of St. Augustine’s teachings on this, as they don’t all agree with this little snippet.
 
hi NW,
What else does Augustine say on this? My little book says about Aramaic that /kipha/ has the masculine verbal pronoun /hui/ before the name “Peter”, but the feminine demonstrative adjective /hade/ before “rock”.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary has “Petros denotes a piece of rock…in contrast to petra, a mass of rock”.
Vincent. “Word Studies in NT” says [petros] …" piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector…or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone".
 
The Oxford Dictionary has:
petrify …Gr. petra .rock.
petro-…Gr. petros. stone.
 
The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic.
Kepha is transliterated as Cephas in Paul’s epistles and means rock.

You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church…gates of hell…etc

I had read somewhere that the Greek word for rock was feminime so when it was translated they used the masculine which initially meant pebble or something like that but by this stage both had began to mean simply rock
 
chimera said:
hi NW,
What else does Augustine say on this? My little book says about Aramaic that /kipha/ has the masculine verbal pronoun /hui/ before the name “Peter”, but the feminine demonstrative adjective /hade/ before “rock”.
Vine’s Expository Dictionary has “Petros denotes a piece of rock…in contrast to petra, a mass of rock”.
Vincent. “Word Studies in NT” says [petros] …" piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector…or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone".
Click to expand...
Petros was simply a rock by the time the Koine Greek was around. Petros meant small stone about 500 or so years before Christ. But lithos was the term that was used roughly 17 times in the NT to connote a small stone.

Petros/Petra were simply the masculine/feminine phrasing of the exact same word… Period.
 
“Where does “petros” mean anything other than “rock” - especially when you consider that Jesus is speaking Aramaic, as evidenced by the words, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah” a clearly Aramaic term.”
The Aramaic masc./ fem. forms are indicated by the Greek masc./fem. forms. The difference was known because the Greek text did not use the same term when reporting what Jesus said (“Peter / this rock”). And Peter is always /petros/ in contrast to Jesus . Peter understood what Jesus meant as he described Jesus as corner-stone and apostles as stones. 1 Pet. 2.4-8.
In that case, Peter could use /lithos/ for all of them. And so those humans disputed as to who was the greatest, which question was rejected by Jesus as foreign to him.
 
Notworthy]“Where does “petros” mean anything other than “rock” - especially when you consider that Jesus is speaking Aramaic said:
The Aramaic masc./ fem. forms are indicated by the Greek masc./fem. forms.
Click to expand...
Chimera? “Kepha” (rock) had no masculine/feminine forms in Aramaic. Kepha was Kepha was Kepha.

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah,… you are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church.
The difference was known because the Greek text did not use the same term when reporting what Jesus said (“Peter / this rock”). And Peter is always /petros/ in contrast to Jesus .
Click to expand...
Peter is Petros simply because Peter is masculine.

The Greek grammar rules forced the inspired author of the Greek to write, “You are Petros (masuline form only) and on this Petra (feminine form only)…”

As I mentioned, any rules that made “Petros” a small stone were outdated long before the 1st century.
Peter understood what Jesus meant as he described Jesus as corner-stone and apostles as stones. 1 Pet. 2.4-8.
In that case, Peter could use /lithos/ for all of them. And so those humans disputed as to who was the greatest, which question was rejected by Jesus as foreign to him.
Click to expand...
So… you are claiming that Peter was humble, is that it. For, although he didn’t strut around saying he was leader, he certainly did lead.
  • Who did Peter consult when he claimed that Judas needed to be replaced?
  • Who did Peter consult when asked “What then should we do?” by the Jews at Pentecost?
  • Who did Peter consult when he opened up the Church to the Gentiles?
In retrospect,
  • Who did Paul consult with to verify his message that he was to preach to the Gentiles?
  • Who did James base his judgment on in the Jerusalem Council?
 
What else does Augustine say on this?
Click to expand...
Lots of stuff. Unfortunatly Augustine did not speak Greek (although this does not diminish his briliance).

However there are several church fathers who did: Origen, Cyprian, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, to name a few. Not one of them makes a destinction in the size of the rocks when they analyze this text. Any translation must analyze the historical usage of a word before deriving the meaning. It is clear that there is no evidence for a distinction in size between the rocks based on the Patristic evidence we have.

You may call this an argument from silence, but I think it very likely that primary Greek speakers would have noted this distinction since it would have been most obvious to them had it existed. But…they do not.

God bless,
Ut
 
“Kepha” (rock) had no masculine/feminine forms in Aramaic. "
What are the genders of Aramaic particles /hu/ and /hade/?

‘The Greek grammar rules forced the inspired author of the Greek to write, “You are Petros (masuline form only) and on this Petra (feminine form only)…”
The rock-mass of Matt.7.24 is “ten petran” (fem. noun). The point of Jesus’ words was the size of that rock as a house-foundation.
Paul said /petra en o Christos/._ 1 Cor.10.4.
As I mentioned, any rules that made “Petros” a small stone were outdated long before the 1st century"
Why did they choose the 2 genders of the simple unqualified noun ?
"So… you are claiming that Peter was humble, is that it. For, although he didn’t strut around saying he was leader, he certainly did lead. "
The apostles and Jesus didn’t know he was “Leader”.

"- Who did Peter consult when he claimed that Judas needed to be replaced?
  • Who did Peter consult when asked “What then should we do?” by the Jews at Pentecost?
  • Who did Peter consult when he opened up the Church to the Gentiles?"
    Peter spoke with authority as did James equally. _Acts 15.7, 13.
    "In retrospect,
  • Who did Paul consult with to verify his message that he was to preach to the Gentiles?"
    He went “to the disciples”, who were afraid of him and Barnabas led him “to the apostles” Peter and James ( evidently an apostle in the broad sense).
  • “Who did James base his judgment on in the Jerusalem Council?”
    He referred to Peter and the prophets and then made “my decision”. “The apostles and older men” then united in ageement. Peter was apostle to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. Paul “withstood Peter to his face as he was blamed” (“resisted him as he was condemned”)._Gal. 2.11. James and Peter and John seemed to be pillars._Gal. 2.9.
 
ut,
If the 2 sizes were obsolete, the other verses elaborate on the “corner”-stone Jesus as distinct from all the apostles as stones.
 
chimera said:
ut,
If the 2 sizes were obsolete, the other verses elaborate on the “corner”-stone Jesus as distinct from all the apostles as stones.
Click to expand...
Chimera, I don’t think anyone questions that Jesus is the cornerstone, the stone which the entire foundation is based upon and measured against.
 
chimera said:
ut,
If the 2 sizes were obsolete, the other verses elaborate on the “corner”-stone Jesus as distinct from all the apostles as stones.
Click to expand...
The bible is not providing a course on Church masonry. These are two distinct metaphors. In the corner stone methaphors, Jesus is clearly described by Paul, and he describes himself as the corner stone. In Matthew 16, Jesus is the builder, and Peter/Peter’s faith is the stone one which Jesus will build his church. Because Jesus is the builder in Matthew 16 does not invalidate his role as corner stone, nor is his role as cornerstone invalidate Peter’s role as the stone on which Jesus builds his church.

The same thing goes for the keys. In revelations, Jesus is the holder of the keys. But in Matthew 16, he gives the keys to Peter. Does this mean Jesus is no longer the holder of the keys? No. It means Peter is weilding the power of the keys at the good pleasure of the king, Jesus Christ. If you read Isaiah 22, you will see a clear example of the authority bound up with the keys. It is very similar to the power given to Joseph in Genesis 40 by Pharaoh
39 So Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are.
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you.
41 Herewith,” Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.”
42 With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck.
43 He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt.
44 “I, Pharaoh, proclaim,” he told Joseph, “that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”
Click to expand...
The power of binding and loosing had a clearly legislative function at the time of Jesus. I can provide for your example from Josephus if you’d like them. Queen Alexandra, the mother of Hyrcanus II gave the Pharisee authority to bind and loose in her behalf, and, during her reign, they became the true rulers of Isreal.

God bless,
Ut
 
Jesus prayer that they be “ONE” means this to me

“One” there is only “One” God. “One” body, “One” Church, “One” Kingdom, “One” thought, “One” desire, “One” will------ God and Jesus were “ONE” in all things. “One” all “HOLY” We also are to seek to become “ONE” with God.

We were created from “ONE” God who is Holy, to become Holy, to serve God who is Holy.

We were created from Love, to become Love, to serve Love.

We need to conquer “ourselves first” in order I believe to become “One” with God – my mind, heart, soul, strength, our bodies. We at war within ourselves----I ask myself am I-- “ONE”—

No, why because My heart knows what is right or wrong, good or evil, but my mind wins over my heart—when I know I should not be doing sometimes what I choose to do. Most of the time when I choose something it is to serve the flesh–satisfy, therefore we end up not serving God but serving our flesh, don’t you think? If I use my strength in serving self rather than serving others etc etc.

Simply all that we are–our mind, heart, soul, strength, yes even giving our life to God—all that I am becomes “ONE” will “ONE” desire to give totally all —whole— to God!

Wanting only all that “I am”— all agree within me( mind, hearat, soul, strengh, my life) to surrender “to not mine will and desire” but, God’s will and desire for me to be accomplished for his Glory.

'ONE"—Jesus taught us and his actions showed us, God and Jesus were “ONE” in all things.

We are the temple of the Lord----“a house cannot stand if it is divided.” We have to conquer our wars within us first!

That is why there is no Peace in the world—period.

God Bless
 
Peter had such authority relating to the Jews, in contrast to Paul who organised the Europeans of Rome. As Petros used the word “petra” to identify Jesus as rock-mass, so Peter is never contrasted with the /lithos/ stones of all apostles. Jesus gave BVM not to Peter but to John who accomodated her in his house. There were several apostles as “pillars” but never a different metaphor for Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top