Jesus's prayer that they be one?

[MarcoPolo]

"

• “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.

And there you have the Magisterium at work. Jerusalem was James’ jurisdiction, yet Peter still spoke first.

But what are you getting at with the kepha exercise? Are you saying that if Peter was a stone instead of a rock, Jesus could not build a Church on it?

 

[utunumsint]

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.

Homer lived around 700 BC, long before Koine Greek was used. How does this quote prove anything about how the word was understood and used at the time of Christ? That the ancient etymology of a word had a certain meaning, does not mean that the word is used in the same way today.

Let me ilustrate. Between Homer’s time and the time of Jesus there is a 700 year gap. The English language as we can recognise it today is only 500 years old. Old English is practically unrecognizable to us today, and sounds more German than anything.

I would also like to point out that Jesus was not speaking Greek when he said this.

God bless,
Ut

 

[NotWorthy]

And there you have the Magisterium at work. Jerusalem was James’ jurisdiction, yet Peter still spoke first.

But what are you getting at with the kepha exercise? Are you saying that if Peter was a stone instead of a rock, Jesus could not build a Church on it?

Although it’s irrelevant, Jesus could have built His Church on a mustard seed, eh?

 

[chimera]

Yes, the Homer word “petre” was not used in 1st cent., but the quote does not say that “petros” also changed. Hence the New Advent Encyc. quote uses “petros” stone, and evidently it was a normal word for a stone when translating “kipha”, masc. or fem., in 1st. cent. As the apostles were all stones, Jesus may have built on them based on Peter, and said so. But he didn’t. Peter wrote not that himself was the main stone, or even a second great stone, but that Jesus was the contrasting stone to the apostles.
Peter as apostle to Jews was “a pillar” and spoke at the council, as normally happens in a Cabinet / Committee etc. before the president /chairman has the final say after others have commented. Rome is west of Jerusalem in Paul’s patch, and no Bible writer hinted that either man was “Leader” there.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, the Homer word “petre” was not used in 1st cent., but the quote does not say that “petros” also changed. Hence the New Advent Encyc. quote uses “petros” stone, and evidently it was a normal word for a stone when translating “kipha”, masc. or fem., in 1st. cent. As the apostles were all stones, Jesus may have built on them based on Peter, and said so. But he didn’t. Peter wrote not that himself was the main stone, or even a second great stone, but that Jesus was the contrasting stone to the apostles.
Peter as apostle to Jews was “a pillar” and spoke at the council, as normally happens in a Cabinet / Committee etc. before the president /chairman has the final say after others have commented. Rome is west of Jerusalem in Paul’s patch, and no Bible writer hinted that either man was “Leader” there.

That’s funny. Because Luke literally screams it out. I guess some things are only for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

BTW, isn’t Petros used one time in the New Testament to describe a large stone? I thought I heard Tim Staples say that, but I lent the CD’s to my brother.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, I’m not sure about the petros being used as a large stone once in the NT, but I do know that lithos is the Koine Greek term
for small stone and it’s used numerous time in the NT.

But, there is a term in Aramaic for small stone: This comes from an article in Envoy magazine.

      "And just as Greek has a word for 'small stone,' lithos, so does         Aramaic. That word is evna. But Jesus did not change Simon's name to         Evna, He named him Kephas, which translates as Petros, and means a large         rock."In regards to the Petra and the Petros being the same rock:

     "Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for         'and,' which is 'kai,' the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In         other words, when Jesus says, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will         build My Church,' the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock         as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.And regarding the Greek term for small stones, lithos, Tim  writes



     "In Matthew 4:3, the devil cajoles Jesus         to perform a miracle and transform some stones, lithoi, the Greek plural         for lithos, into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up stones,         lithoi, to stone Jesus with. In 1 Peter 2:5, St. Peter describes         Christians as 'living stones,' lithoi, which form a spiritual house. If         St. Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between a big rock and a         little rock in Matthew 16:17-19, he could have by using lithos, but he         didn't. The rock is St. Peter!"

 

[chimera]

“Luke screams out…” …what? that Paul was Leader in Rome? whoops.
Evna and lithos don’t have the 2 forms of kipha / petr- which give the variation of size. As “this petra” is not just a pronoun but attached to a different noun from petros, the rule which you state is not clearly applied. Why would Jesus muddle such a major point with 2 distinct words if he wanted to speak of the same stone?

 

[NotWorthy]

“Luke screams out…” …what? that Paul was Leader in Rome? whoops.

No, that Peter was the leader of the New Church, silly.

When Peter makes a new decision, He doesn’t base it on anybody else’s (name removed by moderator)ut or he doesn’t consult the others. It’s simply said and done. I can see Yul Brynner having no less authority when he says, “So, let it be written… so let it be done”. Sorry, I have an over-active imagination.

But when Paul is faced with the same opportunity, does he make the pronouncement? No, he takes the case with Barnabas to Jerusalem.

And when James is faced with the same opportunity, does he make the pronouncement? No, he bases his decision on Peter’s words.

“My brothers, Symeon has spoken… It is my decision, therefore…”

Evna and lithos don’t have the 2 forms of kipha / petr- which give the variation of size.

Evna is a small stone. Lithos is a small stone. Why didn’t Jesus use them when He could.

As “this petra” is not just a pronoun but attached to a different noun from petros, the rule which you state is not clearly applied. Why would Jesus muddle such a major point with 2 distinct words if he wanted to speak of the same stone?

No, again. “This petra” refers to the same rock “petros”. The Greek author was simply forced to use proper grammar. I’ll state the rule again:

"Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘and,’ which is ‘kai,’ the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, ‘You are rock, **and **(“kai”) on this rock I will build My Church,’ the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.

There, see how clearly the quote button helps?

 

[chimera]

At Acts 15, the men began disputing, then Peter spoke, then they listened to Barnabas and Paul, then James said that Symeon’s words agreed with the prophets, and made his decision followed by all the apostles agreeing.
Why didn’t Jesus use “lithos”? Because petros / petra gives a neat comparison in accord with all his other vivid parables which easily stay in memory.
The pronoun rule has nothing to do with masc. /fem. petro.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The pronoun rule has nothing to do with masc. /fem. petro.

May I ask again. What is the significance of you trying to identify Peter as a stone? Can Jesus not build His Church on a stone?

 

[NotWorthy]

At Acts 15, the men began disputing, then Peter spoke, then they listened to Barnabas and Paul, then James said that Symeon’s words agreed with the prophets, and made his decision followed by all the apostles agreeing.

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear…
Peter spoke, chimera says. Peter doesn’t “just speak”. Peter says, …Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they." Then the assembly fell silent. This is Jewish-speak for the matter has been settled.

Then they listen to Paul and Barnabas, who simply confirm that the Gentiles are working signs and wonders because of the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Barnabas’ stories simply confirm that Peter spoke the truth.

Then James makes a decision based on Peter’s words and (unspoken) confirmed by Paul’s and Barnabus’ testimony.

But it’s interesting, you failed to comment on all the cases that Peter made a decision on his own, without any consultation with others.

Why didn’t Jesus use “lithos”? Because petros / petra gives a neat comparison in accord with all his other vivid parables which easily stay in memory.
The pronoun rule has nothing to do with masc. /fem. petro.

That’s funny, because most every scholar disagrees with you.

To post just a few Protestant Theologians that disagree with you:

**PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETROS/PETRA **

**Protestant scholar D.A. Carson explains: **

“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size).”

D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes,

“The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra [petra] and Petros; Petros = petra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”

Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.

**Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent wrote: **

“The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones.”

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887)), 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92.

Continued…

 

[NotWorthy]

And a couple more:

**Protestant scholar W.F. Albright wrote: **

This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.)."

W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195.

**David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote: **

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”

David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261.

BTW, thanks Montanaman for providing this information!

 

[chimera]

Peter as apostle to Jews made decisions, as did Paul. But in the relationship with all apostles, Peter is not described as having eminence as a right. His words are not attributed to a ranking or title. If his word was binding, why did others need to explain further and review his words? Why does the final apostolic decision in Acts 15 not refer to Peter’s authority in any way?
Can Jesus be both rock and architect? Yes, in John 2.19-22.
His word outweighs scholars’ guesses.

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter as apostle to Jews made decisions, as did Paul. But in the relationship with all apostles, Peter is not described as having eminence as a right.

Except for that whole “I give you the keys” business, and “Upon this Rock I will build My Church”, and no one other singular person is given the power to “bind and loose”.

To support these claims, I refer you to what you write at the end of this post.

chimera:

His word outweighs scholars’ guesses

From the mouth of babes…

A group of people, as a whole will be given this authority to “bind and loose” as in Acts. 15. This is what Catholics call an Ecumenical Council. And the Council as a whole can make “binding and loosing” statements as is demonstrated here.

His words are not attributed to a ranking or title. If his word was binding, why did others need to explain further and review his words? Why does the final apostolic decision in Acts 15 not refer to Peter’s authority in any way?

I don’t recall making the claim that Peter was acting as Pope in Jerusalem. I think my original statement was:

• Who did James base his judgment on in the Jerusalem Council?

It is common for non-catholics to make the claim that James is the boss in this scene. that Catholics claim Peter is in the early Church. I was simply pointing out that James used the statements of Peter, and statement given from a position of authority, to verify his pronouncement. Incidentally, this decision was later changed and even the four Noahide restrictions were lifted. This is what Catholics call “Disciplines”.

Can Jesus be both rock and architect? Yes, in John 2.19-22.
His word outweighs scholars’ guesses.

Can Jesus be Rock and Peter? Yes,

Can Jesus be Shepherd and Peter and the rest of the Apostles? Yes.

Can Jesus be the Foundation as well as the Apostles? Yes.

So what.

That does not mean that Peter is not the Rock, the one given the keys to the Kingdom.

And one more time:

chimera:

His word outweighs scholars’ guesses

It should be noted that these are well respected Non-Catholic Scholars who have overcome their anti-catholic bias to understand that it is futile to argue that Peter is not the Rock. It takes a lot of convincing to throw somebody over that wall.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Except for that whole “I give you the keys” business, and “Upon this Rock I will build My Church”, and no one other singular person is given the power to “bind and loose”.

Can Jesus be Rock and Peter? Yes,

Can Jesus be Shepherd and Peter and the rest of the Apostles? Yes.

Can Jesus be the Foundation as well as the Apostles? Yes.

You’re doing a very good job staying on point, NotWorthy.

 

[NotWorthy]

You’re doing a very good job staying on point, NotWorthy.

Thanks for your kind words, Marco!

 

[chimera]

“Can Jesus be Rock and Peter? Yes,
Can Jesus be Shepherd and Peter and the rest of the Apostles? Yes.”
I don’t get it. 2 Rocks ? 2 Good Shepherds? Peter as Rock for Jesus as corner-stone with 11 apostles?
You say Peter was not Pope in Jerusalem. James called him Symeon which did not remind the apostles of him being declared
“Rock”. Why did not Peter have the final word?
Notworthy will now have the final word.

 

[NotWorthy]

“Can Jesus be Rock and Peter? Yes,
Can Jesus be Shepherd and Peter and the rest of the Apostles? Yes.”
I don’t get it. 2 Rocks ? 2 Good Shepherds? Peter as Rock for Jesus as corner-stone with 11 apostles?
You say Peter was not Pope in Jerusalem. James called him Symeon which did not remind the apostles of him being declared
“Rock”. Why did not Peter have the final word?
Notworthy will now have the final word.

Look at my words again. I DID NOT say Peter was not Pope in Jersualem.

In any Ecumenical Council for the last 2000 years (uhhh…, how old is your church, btw? ) the local bishop is the head of the council. Now, whatever that council decides is binding on the faithful if (and only if) the Pope approves of the message. There have been some Ecumenical Councils that never received Papal approval. These councils (if I’m correct) are called synods and are only for the local diocese.

We get this from the precedent set in Acts 15 in conjunction with the words of Christ in Matthew 16 (and John 21 and Isaiah 22 and numerous other precedents throughout Acts).

You see, the Catholic Church is very Biblical, indeed!

Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 gave the Jerusalem Council authority. Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 gave Peter authority to make the numerous binding rules that he did throughout Acts.
And since Peter’s authority was given first and were accompanied with the Keys to the Kingdom, he has the authority to approve the results of Ecumenical Councils.