Jesus's prayer that they be one?

[NotWorthy]

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.

And once again, you lose me…

 

[chimera]

NW,
You mean “lose” as in “lose my interest”, or “can’t understand”?
I meant that Paul had more claim to lead in Rome than Peter of the Jews. If Peter was “Leader” and had room in his house for Paul, then why did not he have the care of BVM? Peter knew his own name was “Petros” and “hu Kipha”, so his word “petra” for Jesus was specifically chosen. Jesus lack of interest in prominence is shown by Judas having to identify Jesus to the armed men in Gethsemane, evidently because the Lord was dressed the same as his apostle brothers. So he said “Don’t be called Rabbi… call no man your father upon the earth…neither be called masters…” Matt.23.8-11. Peter is not described as a special
“pillar” or special “lithos”.

 

[NotWorthy]

NW,
You mean “lose” as in “lose my interest”, or “can’t understand”?

If I lost interest, I wouldn’t have remained on the thread.

I meant that Paul had more claim to lead in Rome than Peter of the Jews. If Peter was “Leader” and had room in his house for Paul, then why did not he have the care of BVM?

Peter had his role, John had his, and Paul had his. Peter’s was head of the New Covenant Church, the Rock on whom Jesus would build His Church. Paul certainly had a role, but it was not leader of the Church. Paul helped to build the Church in Rome, but as Christian tradition has stated since the very beginning, Paul never had more claim. Peter was the First Apostle (the Proto Apostle).

Peter knew his own name was “Petros” and “hu Kipha”, so his word “petra” for Jesus was specifically chosen.

You are making little sense with “hu Kipha”. What does masculine/feminine have to do with that? Paul called Peter Cephas, the Greek rendering of the Aramaic Kepha. Peter was Rock, not pebble.

Jesus lack of interest in prominence is shown by Judas having to identify Jesus to the armed men in Gethsemane, evidently because the Lord was dressed the same as his apostle brothers.

Oh. I thought it had more to do with the fact that it was dark and in a wooded area. My bad… or maybe not?

So he said “Don’t be called Rabbi… call no man your father upon the earth…neither be called masters…” Matt.23.8-11. Peter is not described as a special
“pillar” or special “lithos”.

"Blessed are you Simon for no mere man has revealed this to you… and you are insignificant…? Is this how Jesus treats this revelation?

Sure Peter is the leader of the early Church and most every honest historian, Catholic and Protestant alike, agrees with that.

 

[chimera]

"You are making little sense with “hu Kipha”. What does masculine/feminine have to do with that? "
The Syriac Aramaic has “hu kipha” (masc. Peter) and “hade kipha” (fem. rock-mass).
"Blessed are you Simon for no mere man has revealed this to you… and you are insignificant…? Is this how Jesus treats this revelation? "
In Matt. 5 there are 9 “blessed” peoples. All have their reward in the kingdom of heaven.
Judas in Gethsemane came to Jesus “forthwith” (Matt.) In John, Jesus asked the men who they were seeking and they said
“Jesus”. Thus Jesus had no distinctive clothing. Paul as a “special” apostle like Peter had no distinctive title in Europe and is just described by name with Barnabas, Timothy, etc. Paul never refers to any disciple by a Title .

 

[NotWorthy]

Chimera, the “quote” button really helps out those that are reading along…

The Syriac Aramaic has “hu kipha” (masc. Peter) and “hade kipha” (fem. rock-mass).

OK, is this the same straw-man argument that the Greek petra/petros forms? I’m not familiar with the Aramaic need for masculine/feminine terminology, but in the Greek the use of petra and petros means nothing other than the fact that Matthew knows how to follow grammatical rules. Can you explain the significance of the Aramaic using hu/hade?

In Matt. 5 there are 9 “blessed” peoples. All have their reward in the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, anyone who is blessed as in the Sermon on the Mount is great, for the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John the Baptist. What’s the point?

Don’t confuse Jesus’ teaching to the sheep on Salvation with Jesus’ teaching the Apostles of the foundation of the New Covenant Church.

Judas in Gethsemane came to Jesus “forthwith” (Matt.) In John, Jesus asked the men who they were seeking and they said
“Jesus”. Thus Jesus had no distinctive clothing.

Oh really? Jesus had a robe with no seam (as revealed in John’s Gosepl)!! Do you realize the significance of this? This was no cheap piece of clothing. It was dark in Gethsemane and they were in the woods. Yes, Jude would recognize the master, especially since Jesus rose to greet them, while the Apostles were still wiping the sleep from their eyes.

Paul as a “special” apostle like Peter had no distinctive title in Europe and is just described by name with Barnabas, Timothy, etc. Paul never refers to any disciple by a Title .

OK, once again, you lost me. Where are you going with this argument? I think I know, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.

 

[chimera]

I use the quote button but my bronze-age pc can’t handle it.
“Matthew knows how to follow grammatical rules. Can you explain the significance of the Aramaic using hu/hade?”
Matthew could have used “petros” twice, or “hu kipha” twice, as Peter could have used “petros” for “rock-mass”. But they didn’t, selecting the fem. “petra” ( “hade kipha”) when not needed._1 Pet. 2.4-8. And Peter would be more aware of the form “petros” than “petra”.
" Jesus had a robe with no seam (as revealed in John’s Gosepl)!! "
The lack of a seam is all that is mentioned.
" It was dark in Gethsemane and they were in the woods."
The men had torches. Face to face they couldn’t identify the one they had been instructed to find.
Paul had no title for Peter, and no apostle mentioned anything further about the rock-mass of Peter. Possibly it is seen as Mount Zion in Rev. 14.1

 

[NotWorthy]

Then can you find a way to make it clearer to the average Joe which words are yours and which words are someone else? In other words, try and make it to where an idiot like me wouldn’t get confused. I call it making it “Notworthy-proof”!

I use the quote button but my bronze-age pc can’t handle it.
“Matthew knows how to follow grammatical rules. Can you explain the significance of the Aramaic using hu/hade?”
Matthew could have used “petros” twice, or “hu kipha” twice, as Peter could have used “petros” for “rock-mass”. But they didn’t, selecting the fem. “petra” ( “hade kipha”) when not needed._1 Pet. 2.4-8. And Peter would be more aware of the form “petros” than “petra”.

I have always heard that Matthew had no choice in chapter 16 but to use “Petra” for the rock mass, because it could only be used in the feminine form and “Petros” for Simon since it was masculine. Are you saying this is incorrect?

Notworthy:

" Jesus had a robe with no seam (as revealed in John’s Gosepl)!! "

The lack of a seam is all that is mentioned.
" It was dark in Gethsemane and they were in the woods."
The men had torches. Face to face they couldn’t identify the one they had been instructed to find.

The seamless robe would have been much nicer than the other clothes. Once does not make a seamless robe and then “dumb it down” to look like the patched up clothing that the normal fisherman would have worn. It was dark and in the woods, hence, they wanted to be sure they got the right guy. The reason for Judas was because it was dark and they didn’t want to make mistakes. You can’t be sure that Jesus didn’t stand out, especially in the woods in the dark.

Paul had no title for Peter, and no apostle mentioned anything further about the rock-mass of Peter. Possibly it is seen as Mount Zion in Rev. 14.1

They may not have given Peter any special titles. The Romans were in the habit of “lopping off the heads” of any snakes that they deem dangerous, so this would seem to be the case in not addressing anyone with a title.

But… they certainly gave way to Peter’s authority. And Peter exerted that authority with the assumption that others would follow.

 

[chimera]

I put quotes in " blah blah" and my stuff without " “.
“I have always heard that Matthew had no choice in chapter 16 but to use “Petra” for the rock mass, because it could only be used in the feminine form and “Petros” for Simon since it was masculine. Are you saying this is incorrect?”
But…but… if it means the same thing, then can it be written in 2 forms…um… it has 2 forms… what’s the question?.. You mentioned “grammatical rules in Greek”. The verse has “on this rock I will…” In Matt.21.5 Jesus is “on a colt” of an ***. This is masculine (of course) and is written …” epi onon, kai polon uion…" So the grammatical form stays masculine in that grammar.
So petros would stay masculine, unless something else was going on - such as a different rock type.
“They may not have given Peter any special titles. The Romans were in the habit of “lopping off the heads” of any snakes that they deem dangerous, so this would seem to be the case in not addressing anyone with a title.”
But the term “Rock” was given in Matthew, you say. I meant that no other Bible writer mentions Peter in that way. Paul said himself was in Rome, as did Luke say Paul was there, but they don’t mention that rock.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

chimera

Your posts are too hard to follow. Unlike NW, I did lose interest in what you were saying.

However this exchange between MH84 and Notworthy did interest me:

** MH84: **How come Jesus’ prayer didnt come true?

NotWorthy: Huh?

Care to elaborate MH84?

God bless

 

[MH84]

chimera

Your posts are too hard to follow. Unlike NW, I did lose interest in what you were saying.

However this exchange between MH84 and Notworthy did interest me:

Care to elaborate MH84?

God bless

See post #18.

 

[NotWorthy]

I put quotes in " blah blah" and my stuff without " “.
“I have always heard that Matthew had no choice in chapter 16 but to use “Petra” for the rock mass, because it could only be used in the feminine form and “Petros” for Simon since it was masculine. Are you saying this is incorrect?”
But…but… if it means the same thing, then can it be written in 2 forms…um… it has 2 forms… what’s the question?.. You mentioned “grammatical rules in Greek”. The verse has “on this rock I will…” In Matt.21.5 Jesus is “on a colt” of an ***. This is masculine (of course) and is written …” epi onon, kai polon uion…" So the grammatical form stays masculine in that grammar.
So petros would stay masculine, unless something else was going on - such as a different rock type.
“They may not have given Peter any special titles. The Romans were in the habit of “lopping off the heads” of any snakes that they deem dangerous, so this would seem to be the case in not addressing anyone with a title.”
But the term “Rock” was given in Matthew, you say. I meant that no other Bible writer mentions Peter in that way. Paul said himself was in Rome, as did Luke say Paul was there, but they don’t mention that rock.

except that Paul was in jail in Rome, wasn’t he (I may be wrong here).

But the colt of an a** could be a male. A rock can’t. Grammatical rules called for a rock to be identified as feminine. BTW, the quote button really doesn’t cause much strain on even bronze-age computers!

 

[utunumsint]

The Greek would have used ajectives to modify Petros and Petra if they wanted to indicate a difference between the two. Jerome would have translated these words with adjectives to make it clear to the latin reader. Probably something like “parvus Petros” and magnam Petram".

God bless,
Ut

 

[chimera]

This is what you get in my quote button - blank spaces:

except that Paul was in jail in Rome, wasn’t he (I may be wrong here)."
The last part of Acts says he was fairly unrestricted. He didn’t mention a visit by “Rocky”.

“But the colt of an a** could be a male. A rock can’t. Grammatical rules called for a rock to be identified as feminine.”
A colt has to be a male. Men had Colt .45, a woman had a derringer. Rocks can be male because that was Peter. Oxford Dictionary gives “petro-” (chemical) from either petra or petros. In fact no adjectives were used in Matt. 16 and they would have confused the verbal illustration which Jesus used to make his point.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is what you get in my quote button - blank spaces:

Only because you took out the “”. It would have worked otherwise.

Notworthy:

except that Paul was in jail in Rome, wasn’t he (I may be wrong here)."

chimera:

The last part of Acts says he was fairly unrestricted. He didn’t mention a visit by “Rocky”.

“But the colt of an a** could be a male. A rock can’t. Grammatical rules called for a rock to be identified as feminine.”

chimera:

A colt has to be a male. Men had Colt .45, a woman had a derringer.

Chimera:

Rocks can be male because that was Peter. Oxford Dictionary gives “petro-” (chemical) from either petra or petros.

Sigh… Peter was the first time that “Rock” was used as a name. Isn’t that the stinkin’ point?

Think of it this way, if your dad was named Joseph and you were named after him, you’d be called Joseph, right? But your sister would have been named Josephine, right? That’s the whole story behind Matthew 16. If Mary Magdalene would have been chosen as the first Pope (although she would have been the first, “Mama” ) Matthew would have written, “You are Petra and on this Petra”.

And the Oxford Dictionary could care less about the feminine/masculine gender of Petra/Petros. Straw Man.

In fact no adjectives were used in Matt. 16 and they would have confused the verbal illustration which Jesus used to make his point.

No adjectives were necessary. Grammatical rules still apply even in the absence of adjectives.

 

[chimera]

Yes, if MM was Mama, Jesus would say “Petra, petra”.
If Peter Pop, then Jesus would say “Petros, petros”. The Ox. Dict. does not care about this q., it just gives facts that both “petra , petros” existed and were grammatically equal to mean rock.That leaves only the exact meaning of the type of rock as the reason for Jesus selecting first masc. and then fem.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, if MM was Mama, Jesus would say “Petra, petra”.
If Peter Pop, then Jesus would say “Petros, petros”. The Ox. Dict. does not care about this q., it just gives facts that both “petra , petros” existed and were grammatically equal to mean rock.That leaves only the exact meaning of the type of rock as the reason for Jesus selecting first masc. and then fem.

No, that leaves the exact reason for Jesus using the masculine and the feminine is that the Holy Spirit is grammatically adept in Greek and knows how to follow gender rules.

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, if MM was Mama, Jesus would say “Petra, petra”.
If Peter Pop, then Jesus would say “Petros, petros”. The Ox. Dict. does not care about this q., it just gives facts that both “petra , petros” existed and were grammatically equal to mean rock.That leaves only the exact meaning of the type of rock as the reason for Jesus selecting first masc. and then fem.

Do you have any exprience with translation? If translation were solely a matter of looking up equivalent words in a dictionary, we could get a computer to do that. Just compare an Oxford dictionary from the turn of the century with an Oxford dictionary from today, and you will see how much things change.

The same goes for dead languages. Over the span of its existence, word usage changes. The dictionary cannot get into all the details of these changes over time. For example, Attic Greek had multiple dialects, each with specific variations in word usage and definition. Koine Greek was a very common form of Greek, widely used throughout the Mediteranean as the language of trade.

Here is a wikipedia link.

God bless,
Ut

 

[chimera]

-“No, that leaves the exact reason for Jesus using the masculine and the feminine is that the Holy Spirit is grammatically adept in Greek and knows how to follow gender rules.”
OK you are correct. The word “petros” is a general term for stone, so the Holy Spirit selected “petra” as different.

Home Encyclopedia Summa Fathers Bible Library
Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > P > Palæontology
CD-ROM
Get the full contents of New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more) on CD-ROM.
Free Shipping Worldwide
Palæontology
“Palæontology, or the science of fossils, deals with extinct or primeval animals and plants. …
The object of palæ href=”…/cathen/11258a.htm">ontological study is petrefactions (from petros, stone, and facere, to make), or fossils (fossilis, what is buried). "

 

[chimera]

Semitic and Indo-European: The Principal Etymologies : with … - Google Books Resultby Saul Levin - 1995 - Language Arts & Disciplines
bcn} ‘stone’ (fern.; pi. D?I1£V {? … ‘stone’, but rather with … Proto-Indo-European *pef- ‘fly’ : Greek petros ‘stone’ / petra 'cliff," Lingua e stile. …
books.google.com.au/books?isbn=902724734X… "
At ref. 316 this page gives petros and petra, and says the Homer version of petra is “petre”. This indicates that petros is not just a Homeric term, but was used in later times. But Jesus chose not to use it twice.

 

[NotWorthy]

Semitic and Indo-European: The Principal Etymologies : with … - Google Books Resultby Saul Levin - 1995 - Language Arts & Disciplines
bcn} ‘stone’ (fern.; pi. D?I1£V {? … ‘stone’, but rather with … Proto-Indo-European *pef- ‘fly’ : Greek petros ‘stone’ / petra 'cliff," Lingua e stile. …
books.google.com.au/books?isbn=902724734X… "
At ref. 316 this page gives petros and petra, and says the Homer version of petra is “petre”. This indicates that petros is not just a Homeric term, but was used in later times. But Jesus chose not to use it twice.

You remind me of the guy who claimed that, even though Petra (large stone) and Petros (small stone) had gone out of usage by 600-700BC, that it returned in vogue for about 50 years during the 1st century AD.

I wasn’t aware that Homer spoke Koine Greek.