Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8589715:

JL: If the Greek petros and petra were TRANSLATED instead of being transliterated into English as Peter. It would read your are ROCK and on this ROCK I will build my church. Christ spoke it Aramaic. It would read your are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my church. Cephas is a transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic kepha.

Jesus taught in Aramaic a Hebrew dialect. [Acts26:14 and we all having fallen to the earth, I HEARD A VOICE SPEAKING UNTO ME, and saying **IN THE HEBREW DIALECT

, Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute? hard for thee against pricks to kick!] {Bible, YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION, Caps added by me}

Thank-you.I understand what you are saying .However ,even with keph -kepha ,a different interpretation could be had properly also .What is the “this” ? Jesus could have have said you are kepha and I will build my church on you (it).All in aramaic. Jesus could have implied himself , that is the confession of Peter that He is the Christ (the chief cornerstone) AND the method of receiving such knowledge thru divine revelation). The confession of the thief on the cross was the ticket to Paradise per Jesus Himself, and the gates of hell - even death, itself could notr stop it that very day.Furthermore ,I believe a translation could also read , “You are rock , and on this rockmass I will build my church.”
Of course if you are already presupposing CC doctrine , then that indeed would be incorrect ,and you have two greek words cause you can’t call Peter rockmass being feminine .I see that now . But again ,it is only error if you have already made up your mind…Peace.

 

[david_ruiz]

Oh yeah? This answer of yours just shows your total disconnect with Scripture. Paul refers to Simon as Cephas because Jesus renamed Simon Cephas. Paul refers to Peter and Cephas because they are one and the same Rock.

You are quick on the draw benedictus.Of course paul called Peter Cephas because of Christ .Paul was Saul remeber .Why he calls him Peter 5 times and Cephas 5 times I am not sure .That is what I meant . Are you connected enough to know why ?

See this is the kind of reply that gets us in circles. When you no longer have a rational reply you go for obfuscation and evation. You think I won’t see through it but I do

. wouldn’t try to fool you Benedictus.I am too ignorant for that.It is quite rational to look at all angles of Holy Scripture,you might find gold.Of course.when you have already decided,no opposing rationale is “rational”.

Bible says it was Jesus who said what will be the foundation of the Church. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic then Jesus said: You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church. Only someone devoid of reason would even insist on the petros /petra non controversy this late in the thread

.Yes to sentence one,and sentence two and possibly 3.It is your presupposition that leads you to interpret the second kepha as relating to Peter. Devoid reasoning has nothing to do with our differences.

Sorry but in Aramaic Kepha is Kepha. Period

.
And petros is petros and petra is petra.

No, that is what YOU are inferring improperly. Cephas is Rock and the only reason the Greek changed it to Petros is because it would have been totally stupid to give a female name (Petra) to a man. And that totally stupid thing is what you seem to be arguing for

.

Understand the problem you have with my reasoning , for it doesn’t fit your presupposition. Fact is Christ (the other possibility -rememeber ?) is the feminine petra in Corinthians-.“that rock was Christ (petra)”.Intesesting there are two rocks there also, the first petros and the last petra both Christ.

No they aren’t. It is only so to those who are devoid of sense when it comes to interpretation

. Cephas was not the only aramaic geological word for rocks,stones etc.But I see your predicament and you have a rational answers ,Thank-you .Just see other possibilities.I am not asking you to agree but at least see them without slander.

If Love of God is the beginning of wisdom how then are we to account for it’s absence from your reply?

Well forgive me for my lack .If the spirit doesn’t fill me, I won’t be filled ,daily .You have been most gracious.Thank-you.

Only someone dense will use the same argument after it has been shown that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In that particular discourse He spoke Aramaic. He did not say petros or petra since He was not talking in Greek. He simply said Kepha. And Kepha means only one thing - Rock.

Again ,you are assuming "this kepha "goes back to Peter, and not Christ , our chief cornerstone, and our confession of faith that seals our entrance into the Body .

No you are totally blind to what you are reading. You are reading scripture but you are not seeing it.

No, thanks to this site I am seeing your understanding , and the rationale behind them. You can not express it any better .

Yes, David. Read more. Read mre of Peter, James and John and in each book you will see that Christ singles out Peter each time. In each book Peter takes primacy. Read Acts.

Read. Read. My point was is James and John better in any way than the others because of their high visibility and biblical mention?

Of course the others were “illumined”.

Good .This is a beginning .Did they confess some time that Jesus is Lord ,as Peter ? Did they use the keys ,that is ,did they loose and bind ?

So let’s take a typical classroom. Teacher says to John Smith : John, you are a brilliant student and you do your homework well. I will make you the captain of the class.

That is your assumption , the thing we are debating. If it is so plain that Peter was made captain , why did others shortly after ask if they could be captian (sit at his right hand) ,or be greater than captain ?

So tell me, do you think the teacher was telling everyone that they will be captain of class just because they happened to in the classroom when the teacher was speaking?

yes and no.

Divine illimunation is for all but it so happens that Christ courses that divine illumination through His Church.

This is not scriptural . Peter did not receive illumination from the current magisterium , of which Jesus said , “Salvation is of the Jews”.

 

[joe370]

joe370;8588844:

What we have for sure is the inspired Greek ,and it does NOT have kepha twice but once. I am not implying error .It is what it is .Do you see kepha twice in the Greek ?

Oh, I understand your point.

I of course, do not see the word Cephas used at all in Matthew 16, but I do see it used to address Simon in other parts of the NT, as you do. What I cannot believe anymore, is the idea that Jesus said the following; of course the entire sentence would have spoken, by Jesus, in Aramaic:

You are Evna and on this cephas I will build my church…

Nor can I believe anymore, that Jesus spoke Koine Greek to His apostles, which means that Jesus didn’t say:

You are Petros and on this petra…

By now, pretty much everyone, including yourself, knows why the word Petros was used instead of Petra, when the holy bible was eventually written in Koine Greek - right?

Moreover, if one is going to emphasize the Greek over the Aramaic, that’s cool, but surely we should all keep in mind that Jesus would then have said, “You are Lithos (“stone”), and upon this petra (“rock”) I will build my Church” - to really drive home the emphasis on the contrast between Himself as the mass-rock and Simon as the opposite. Why didn’t He?

It occurred to me long ago, when I was attempting to trumpet your stance: If Jesus had in fact referred to Himself, then why did He say “and upon this rock” and not “but upon this [or that] rock”? If Jesus had wanted to indicate a contrast, then “but” would have been the conjunction to use, as opposed to “and”! Surely Jesus would not have made a mistake when He actually said those words to His apostles or when He guided His apostle to infallibly commit them to sacred scripture?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8589715:

Oh, I understand your point.

I of course, do not see the word Cephas used at all in Matthew 16, but I do see it used to address Simon in other parts of the NT, as you do. What I cannot believe anymore, is the idea that Jesus said the following; of course the entire sentence would have spoken, by Jesus, in Aramaic:

You are Evna and on this cephas I will build my church…

Nor can I believe anymore, that Jesus spoke Koine Greek to His apostles, which means that Jesus didn’t say:

You are Petros and on this petra…

By now, pretty much everyone, including yourself, knows why the word Petros was used instead of Petra, when the holy bible was eventually written in Koine Greek - right?

Moreover, if one is going to emphasize the Greek over the Aramaic, that’s cool, but surely we should all keep in mind that Jesus would then have said, “You are Lithos (“stone”), and upon this petra (“rock”) I will build my Church” - to really drive home the emphasis on the contrast between Himself as the mass-rock and Simon as the opposite. Why didn’t He?

It occurred to me long ago, when I was attempting to trumpet your stance: If Jesus had in fact referred to Himself, then why did He say “and upon this rock” and not “but upon this [or that] rock”? If Jesus had wanted to indicate a contrast,

then “but” would have been the conjunction to use, as opposed to “and”! Surely Jesus would not have made a mistake when He actually said those words to His apostles or when He guided His apostle to infallibly commit them to sacred scripture?Did Jesus say , “you are petros and upon you I will build my church”. Indeed more explicitness could have been used on both possible interpretations. Based on Corinthians though ,it seems Jesus referred to himself for he is ‘petra’ there. So why could not “petra” be Jesus in Mat16 ? If I were to concede to Peter being the petra also , it would only attest to Revelations where indeed Peter and eleven other apostles were/are our foundation. The church also concedes that all twelve had power to bind and loose, hence used the “keys”. Conceding Peter being the “petra” in Matt 16 doesn’t allude to conceding to the “papacy”/doctrine. Thank-you for your “calm” thoughts.

 

[david_ruiz]

He also said, much later: feed my sheep… feed my lambs…feed my sheep…making Peter Jesus’ earthly shepherd of His earthly church

.All twelve went out in different directions .They were all shepherds .Only Peter denied Him three times and needed refocusing and onto the “mission”.

Of course I am not sure what “get behind me Satan” has to do with anything, unless you believe that that verse proves that Peter couldn’t have been a shepherd of Jesus’ church?

This came about cause you mentioned the possible derogatory nature if he was a small stone and not the rockmass. I have heard others say that as long as Peter was focused on the Lord, he would be ok .As soon as he didn’t , he would fail, as he did in Matt 16:22. It is possible the Lord applauded Peter for his confession but was quick to remind him that either : Christ is still the cornerstone , and that as long as he rested on divine revelation (and not his flesh, as he did in verse 22) the church would be built. I see it as beautiful way of dealing with Peter’s nature (ours also), both to elevate him (us) and yet subtly remind Him (us) of our dependency on petra/Christ . After all, was it really this group of twelve average humans that the world got turned upside down or was it the Holy Spirit, divine revelation, going before them and with them, changing the hearts of men, even the very men that crucified Him ? The Father draws men , the Spirit convicts and leads. Peter and the apostles would not be out on their own, the Father and the Spirit would speak thru them. I can only say that although I had some good teachers ,even heard some good preachers, even had good “churching”, it was not until I also personally received the same divine revelation that Jesus is my savior that I was added to the Body , to the Church , to that sure foundation. Just some thoughts.

 

[david_ruiz]

What Jesus said was “one must be born from above” which Nicodemus mistook for being "born again’

John 3 : 3"Verily, verily, except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God. Vs. 7 ,“Ye must be born again”. Yes “even see” is not accurate as I posted.Sorry

The Holy Ghost baptizes ? Where did you get that idea?

Mat 3:11, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost , and with fire.” Acts1:4 For John truly baptized with water , but ye shall be baptized with the holy Ghost not many days hence". Acts 11:15- “And as I began to speak (Peter/Cornelius), the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning”.

“baptism saves you now”

Because it seems you are ignorant of large chunks of the NT. Peter wrote That’s funny ,in my quote above gentiles were baptized by the Holy Ghost , just upon hearing and believing Peter , with no water baptism yet.

HUh?

Pope Stephen (250) declared all baptisms from different churches /rites are valid,and no need to be re-baptized if you want be catholic .He stated baptism was for remission of sins , but was not regenerational, not spirit giving.

Do you even know that baptism itself implies water. To baptize is to immerse in water.

Apparently it can be more than just water immersion

That is a first stage. The spiritual life has many stages. It is a journey.

Yes ,and the question is are you saved at the first stage, and then live out your spiritual life ,or are you saved in stages?

Yes, there is(middle entity). Because the Bible you are fond of (but don’t follow) happens to have been written through the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps you should be fond of and follow Vatican 2 where it states God gave us the bible.

SIZE=3]Know what? You owe the Church a huge debt of gratitude for the reason you are a Christian now is because of the Catholic Church.

Yes, when I am privileged enough to give a testimony, honor is given where it is due.

Nope. Totally unbiblical. Even Paul had to submit himself to the magiserterium. He had to be annointed by Annanias and he had to ask the Apostles to what to do about the circumcision issue.

Did Ananias annointing give Paul divine revelation as to whom Christ was ? The circumcision issue had to be settled for it was interfering with the spread of the gospel to the gentiles , to which Paul was called to. They all had to submit to really , what had been revealed to Peter and Paul , one on one , from God ,and from church experience ,that God was indeed baptizing gentiles without circumcision.It was the magisterium that conformed to Peter’s and Paul’s testimony.

But the Holy Spirit does confirm in one what the Church teaches if one is truly open to the Holy Spirit

. Good start.

]Considering that the Catholic Church is the one who proclaimed the gospel,

Just what is your church’s gospel ?

You know what, the fact that they left the Church is itself the evidence that they have departed from the Gospel because that is so totally against Christ’s will.

What would you do if you saw your church do or teach something against God’s will ?
.

Ask Him why He had to establish a Church instead of just writing a book?

This is either or .His Church is established AND, His book is written. Nobody says He “just wrote a book” .Why do you say that ?

Well no because that is not what Jesus said and that is not what Jesus willed. You see, you will find out His will through His words and His actions. And guess what? His will was to build a Church.

Yes , but how ? Verily verily you must be born again .God himself must breathe new life into you. Can’t get more personal than that. Again , it is not either or .It is not just you and God , but it is also not just the church, it is not just the Word, it is not just a magisterium. Jesus will is for us to know Him, not just know about Him , but know Him. Several times scripture tells us , "depart from me , I never knew you ". It is totally possible to supposedly love His church too much ,even wrongly,and yet miss the boat. .We even have an example in the Jewish leaders/magisterium .We also have a man named Saul.

You know what you have been doing all this time? Fighting against God. Fighting His will. Angry at His will.

See above -Saul

Nope, not just you and the Lord. Perhaps I misspoke , for we indeed have cheerleaders , yet it is something that miraculously happens to us ,something the Lord does in us, this rebirth, a rebirth into His kingdom ,into His body ,into the Church. It is you. Just like a real fleshly birth , the baby must pass thru, out into the world .The cheerleaders are mommy and daddy and the nurse and doctor.

Religion is not a private thing.

The Book says feeding the poor and visiting the sick is pure religion.

]That is true. But you cannot be truly loving the Lord if you are always fighting against His will, angry at His will and annoyed at His Word such that you invent your own.

There is a time to be submissive and a time to be annoyed and fight for righteousness. For evil to prevail good men must do nothing. There are things in both our churches that are not God’s will.

Peace and Joy of Christ!

You too.Thanks

 

[joe370]

david ruiz Only Peter denied Him three times and needed refocusing and onto the “mission”.

Ok. What’s your point? Are you suggesting that that, in some way, proves that Peter couldn’t be what the CC claims him to be?

This came about cause you mentioned the possible derogatory nature if he was a small stone and not the rockmass. I have heard others say that as long as Peter was focused on the Lord, he would be ok .As soon as he didn’t , he would fail, as he did in Matt 16:22. It is possible the Lord applauded Peter for his confession but was quick to remind him that either : Christ is still the cornerstone ,

So, by proving that Peter (a fallible sinful person just like the rest of the apostles) - could fail, when not focused on the Lord, is somehow proof that the CC could be wrong about Peter being the visible rock on which Jesus’ church is built? Is that your point?

and that as long as he rested on divine revelation (and not his flesh, as he did in verse 22) the church would be built. I see it as beautiful way of dealing with Peter’s nature (ours also), both to elevate him (us) and yet subtly remind Him (us) of our dependency on petra/Christ .

Our reliance on Cephas as the visible rock on which Jesus’ church is built is ultimately TOTAL reliance on Jesus. Without Jesus, the visible rock is pointless. I just assumed we were in agreement on that obvious fact.

After all, was it really this group of twelve average humans that the world got turned upside down or was it the Holy Spirit, divine revelation, going before them and with them, changing the hearts of men, even the very men that crucified Him ?

They are not mutually exclusive. The holy spirit working through Jesus’ apostles (like you said) - gave way to divine revelation which changed the hearts of many.

The Father draws men , the Spirit convicts and leads.

OK…

…it was not until I also personally received the same divine revelation that Jesus is my savior that I was added to the Body , to the Church , to that sure foundation. Just some thoughts.

How did you receive the same divine revelation?

 

[david_ruiz]

Ok. What’s your point? Are you suggesting that that, in some way, proves that Peter couldn’t be what the CC claims him to be?

 

[joe370]

Hey David…

david ruiz]I believe the point was made that the three times Jesus told Peter feed my sheep somehow showed the headship of Peter. I thought it was immaterial , considering the context.That is all.

David, Peter denied Jesus 3 times prior to Jesus’ death, and yet Jesus still commands Peter t feed His sheep after His resurrection? Why if he can’t be trusted, due to his 3 time denial of Jesus prior to His death on the cross?

Immaterial even in light of the fact that Jesus said to Peter "And when you have turned back, **strengthen your brothers”?
**

Not proof , merely a rationale as to why rockmass is Christ/divine revelation /confession might be more appropriate.

I thought you understood that all catholics believe that Jesus is the divine Rock on which His church is built?

It is more of an obvious fact (dependency) when Christ is the rockmass instead of Peter.

So it’s your opinion that Jesus cannot be the Godly Rock if Peter is the earthly visible rock on which Jesus’ church is built?

Agreed .Tried hard to show that,maybe I did better job of it in another thread. Point remains holy spirit would give Peter words AND would open hearts of men ,much like Peter,s heart was opened by the Father ,leading to His confession of faith in Mat 16.

I still don’t see scripture illustrating the fact that Jesus’ church is built on Peter’s confession. Something like: you are peter and on your confession I will build my church…would certainly sway me. However, I don’t see anything remotely close to that Dave. But that’s just me; if you see it that is all that matters.

…The Holy Spirit illumined my soul only when I totally relied on Him for saving faith ,dumping all my past /religious righteousness, for I had nothing good in me to build on .I needed to be born again ,and I almost dared God that it was His problem ,because I was powerless and spiritually destitute. He honored this brokenness and filled me with faith .Yes, the battle was one on one, with the Lord .That is not to say I didn’t have cheerleaders: a preacher , people praying, and bits of seed from here and there coming together miraculously, for faith cometh by hearing , and that by the word of God. The Holy spirit brought to remembrance my 3rd grade Catholic Baltimore Catechism question ,“What is faith ?”. “Faith is a gift of God”. That was a turning point. I said ,“Aha, it is not from within me that faith comes from .You, God, must give it to me. This is your problem”. For the first time in a month I slept like a baby .The next morning I began to understand and have faith ,saving faith…So I feel quite strongly that the rockmass is this divine revelation ,that Christ is Messiah,and confession of that from a pure heart is sweet indeed , yet strong enough to say throw me to the lions , I will not be swayed .The gates of hell shall not prevail , for this is His doing , not mine. Hopefully you can see why I view Peter as the rock only, and not the second Rockmass in Mat 16. This does not keep Peter out of the Loop. He is part of the foundation that cheered/birthed me on. Alleluia

David, that’s quite inspiring and I won’t bug you anymore about Peter. God bless brother.

 

[benedictus2]

Did Jesus say , “you are petros and upon you I will build my church”.

Have you read any of the replies at all?

Did Jesus say :You are Petros and upon this petra? Definitely not.

What Jesus said was You are Kepha and upon this kepha. Translated to English Jesus said: You are Rock and upon this rock.

 

[benedictus2]

] What we have for sure is the inspired Greek ,and it does NOT have kepha twice but once. I am not implying error .It is what it is .Do you see kepha twice in the Greek ?

Hey, you are talking with a fork tongue now,

You said before that you were not saying that Jesus spoke Greek now you are cliinging to a linguistic rendition that you yourself claim He did not speak. Can you not even see the lie the constant convolutions you go through just to be able to defend a postiion that even protestants do not even hold to anymore?

Jesus spoke Aramaic. There is great support that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic according to Papias and according to St Jerome.

But that aside, what proof do we have that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Well, it is evident in the Bible.

When He was dying He cried: Eli, Eli Lama Sabachtani and other Aramaic sayings which actually makes this more interesting. If everything was in Aramaic then one could say of course it says Kepha because the text is written in Aramaic.

But what makes it truly wonderful is that the text is Greek and yet these Aramaic words have been carried over! Why was it not all just written in Greek? Well, it could only have been the work of the Holy Spirit so that there will be no doubt as to what Christ said.

As I have already said before (which it seems you did not bother to read or to understand because you want to remain in the lie of your making ) Jesus first addressed Simon as Simon bar Jonah. Bar meabs “son of” in Aramaic.

As a matter of fact, one can theorize that Jonah is not so much the name of Simon’s father but rather the Holy Spirit because Jonah is Aramaic for Dove.

So one can read His addresses as “Simon son of Dove” or “Son of the Holy Spirit”.

Remember that Jesus said that the Father revealed this to Peter. But the Father’s revelations are usually coursed throught he Holy Spirit. We could therefore say that this event, this proclamation of Simon as Kepha and the kepha upon which Christ will build His Church is a Trinitarian event.

When I explained in another thread that it seems that the Father Himself chose Simon, someone asked me : "but what about the Holy Spirit?, where was He? Well if we think of it in this way, then there’s the Holy Spirit.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi David,

I will repost here something I wrote in another thread. It addresses the Petros/Petra issue systematically. Since the topic has been completely derailed I thought I might as well post it here.

**Question: **Why does the Petros/Petra issue matter?

**Answer: **Because by doing so we determine whether Simon is the rock that Christ built his Church upon.

**BUT,**If this is the whole crux of the matter, then it is not so much the petros/petra that matter but what the Lord actually said and meant.

If the Lord indeed spoke Aramaic, then the petros/petra becomes moot and academic, a non-issue, a red-herring

So the point that has to be addressed first of all is what Language did Christ use and is there any ambuiguity in that language.

First : What are the things that we can now with certainty and those that are mere speculation.

Speculations:

1. That Jesus spoke Greek. That is indeed pure speculation though we can definitely say that He can speak whichever language He pleases.

Certainty:

1. That the Gospel of Matthew as it has come down to us is written in Greek
2. That Jesus spoke Aramaic. Yes, that is something we know with certainty. The Bible says so.

Mark 5:41 Talitha kum
Mark 7:34 Ephphatha
Mark 14:36 Abba
Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:9-13 -Mammon
Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 Eli Eli lema sabachthani
John 1:42 “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

What is interesting about these words being in Aramaic is because the Gospel is written in Greek!!!

If the Gospel was all in Aramaic, we can argue that of course it is in Aramaic because the author is writing in Aramaic. But because the author/(translator) was writing in Greek then, that particular Aramaic words were included, makes you wonder – what was the Holy Spirit up to in making sure that the Aramaic was noted. After all, the writer could have easily had every single word in Greek.

Now if the original was Aramaic and was only translated into Greek, what was the reason for retaining some Aramaic words? Why not translate everything into Greek. There again you see the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But in Matthew 16:18 how do we know that He did speak Aramaic?

What we must look at is who is Jesus talking to? He is talking to a simple fisherman from Galilee,. What sort of language would He use with a simple fisherman?

There is reason to believe that He spoke Latin with Pilate, and perhaps Greek to the more learned. But to a simple fisherman?

We need to remember as well that when this was happening, the other apostles were there too. What would be the language that we can reasonably assume, based on Archeological findings, would these other apostles speak?

Well Jesus gives us a very good clue. Jesus says to Peter : "Blessed are you, Simon barjona. “Bar” is the Aramaic for son, that is why most English bibles translate this as Simon son of Jonah. But in the Greek text barjonah is what is used.

CONTINUED

 

[benedictus2]

As I said in my previous post, that we have the Aramaic words in a Greek language Gospel makes it even more interesting.

Anyway, Is there good reason to believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic:

Allen C Meyers wrote: "It is generally agreed that Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the first century A.D. Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect, which was distinguished from that of Jerusalem.

Meyers cites here Matthew 26:73 when Peter was being accused of being a member of Jesus’s group :“A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away."

Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts* write: There is evidence, however, that points to the use of Aramaic in Galilee, the region where Nazareth was located. Such evidence includes inscriptions, contracts, and other ancient writings. It makes sense that residents of Nazareth spoke Aramaic, given the fact that Aramaic became the official language of Galilee from the sixth-century B.C. onward. Thus, it seems likely that ordinary residents of Galilee, including Nazareth, spoke Aramaic as their first language. This was the language of common discourse among Jesus’ family and friends.
*
*For a more detailed explanation go to this site: *
*http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdrobe...guage-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter.html
*

CONTINUED

 

[benedictus2]

So with the foregoing, and other mounting evidence that supports that Jesus spoke Aramaic, the petros/petra is reduced to a non issue.

Let’s grant for the purpose of this exercise, that Petros is stone and petra is rock.

I will number the segments so we can look at it more clearly. But, bear in mind, this is one CONTINUOUS discourse. So who ever is addressed in the first YOU, is the same YOU in the rest of the discourse.

(1) Blessed are you, Simon barJona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
**(2) **And so I say to you, **you are a little stone, **
**(3) **and upon **this (rock **) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
(4) I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In 1 he calls him blessed then in 2 insults him by calling him a stone. What was the point of calling him a stone? What has his being a stone got to do with 1, 3 and 4? It just does not make sense.

Then in 3 Jesus says “**AND **upon **this **rock”. But if He is meaning to contrast the rock with the little stone,(if He means to belittle Peter by calling him stone) then what Jesus should have said was “BUT upon this rock”. So it should have you gone, you are a little stone BUT upon this rock I will build my Church. But the question arises, what is “this” rock? Notice He did not say upon “A” rock but **THIS **rock.

Which rock?

What rock?

It cannot be Peter’s confession because there is just no way in the structure of this sentence that you can connect that.

So therefore, by insisting on this kind of interpretation, Jesus then sounds like an erratic lunatic who:

• first blesses Peter in1,
• insults him in 2,
• then honors him by giving him the keys to heaven in 4.

And in the meantime we still have no idea what “THIS rock” is that He is referring to.

For Him to use THIS rock, He would have to have been ponting to a particular rock or a the rock being referred to has just been mentioned.

So even structurally speaking the stone/rock controversy does not hold water.

 

[benedictus2]

"What do Protestant Biblical Scholars have to say about it?"

Gerhard Maier (leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian)

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17
**

---

Donald A. Carson III**
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

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.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18​

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

---

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

 

[benedictus2]

.All twelve went out in different directions .They were all shepherds .Only Peter denied Him three times and needed refocusing and onto the “mission”.

And that is a fact.

But what is the even greater fact? Christ knew. Christ knew all that and even predicted it. But guess what, He chose Peter all the same!!!

He even goes so far as to pray for Peter at the Garden of Gethsemane. There He was agonizing and there He was praying for Peter so that when he has turned he will strengthen his brothers.

Why didn’t He just pray for all of them? Why Peter only? Instead of praying that the others be strengthened He instead prays for Peter and from Peter, the strengthening of the others will come. Let me repeat that - the Lord WILLED that the strengthening of the other apostles is to be done through Peter.

That grates with you doesn/t it? God’s will, God’s choice, grates with you.

I think you need to bring that to prayer and tell Him that you do not agree with His choices.

 

[Nicea325]

And that is a fact.

But what is the even greater fact? Christ knew. Christ knew all that and even predicted it. But guess what, He chose Peter all the same!!!

He even goes so far as to pray for Peter at the Garden of Gethsemane. There He was agonizing and there He was praying for Peter so that when he has turned he will strengthen his brothers.

Why didn’t He just pray for all of them? Why Peter only? Instead of praying that the others be strengthened He instead prays for Peter and from Peter, the strengthening of the others will come. Let me repeat that - the Lord WILLED that the strengthening of the other apostles is to be done through Peter.

That grates with you doesn/t it? God’s will, God’s choice, grates with you.

I think you need to bring that to prayer and tell Him that you do not agree with His choices.

Because are brother in Christ suffers from spiritual pride. I suggest he read 1 Cor 2:6-16.

 

[david_ruiz]

It cannot be Peter’s confession because there is just no way in the structure of this sentence that you can connect that.

Blessings Benedictus.Are you sure it doesn’t fit ?.I think it could .Even you say it must be tied to the first Rock(Peter).Well ,what did Peter just experience ?

For Him to use THIS rock, He would have to have been ponting to a particular rock or a the rock being referred to has just been mentioned.

I like your thought ,just add that why could not Jesus have been pointing to what just happened -the confession , that is Jesus,being Messiah ,being revealed by the Father .Indeed Jesus is the chief cornerstone, Peter the rock , but if I may add, well scripture does, that the other eleven are also ,as in "our foundation’ as per Rev., Jesus could have been pointing to himself, covering all of this -the context, the nearness to the rock (Peter )already mentioned.

So even structurally speaking the stone/rock controversy does not hold water.

Could be be .I would not use stone .I have seen more rock/rockmass, not stone /rock…in summary dear Catholics , we have discussed the possibilities .Yes, He spoke in aramaic, probably said kepha/kepha. Jesus did not say you are kepha and upon you I will build , nor did He say you are kepha and upon Me /this revelation I will build.The greek does differentiate with rock/rockmass.Corinthians has scripture referring to Jesus as both (petros and petra) .I understand you say this is just “literary” punditry ,or at least one of your quoted scholars said this. I have stated before that even if one concedes Peter is this rock , for indeed he is a rock,as per the discourse here and earlier on in the gospel , from Jesus and indeed we all agree he ,along with the eleven, are our foundation. Even so ,then what ? The scholars you quoted , where do they go from there, after admitting Peter indeed is this rock ? Do they go on to say this was his appointment to be head ,that from him the others received keys or successors .Indeed do these scholars say this is correct foundation for the pope ? So again, even if Peter is rock , even given keys , does that lead to papal doctrine ? The fact is , early on half the church never bought papal doctrine as projected by the western /Roman church . Again ,from my understanding of the Orthodox , they do not have the Roman pope as their head patriarch.Yet , they are not leaderless, have structure /bishops/ deacons, even had patriarchs. I believe you are in good company, but so is anyone who believes Peter is this rock and had keys, and was first among equals , but just do not see any papal office or such succession of power…Scripture is much more clear that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, and the 12 apostles forming our church foundation. It is also clear that by divine revelation and drawing of the Father we see the Son and are born upon that building/body/bride/kingdom begun 2000 years ago.Blessings.

 

[sallybutler]

.

Blessings Benedictus.Are you sure it doesn’t fit ?.I think it could .Even you say it must be tied to the first Rock(Peter).Well ,what did Peter just experience ?

I like your thought ,just add that why could not Jesus have been pointing to what just happened -the confession , that is Jesus,being Messiah ,being revealed by the Father .Indeed Jesus is the chief cornerstone, Peter the rock , but if I may add, well scripture does, that the other eleven are also ,as in "our foundation’ as per Rev., Jesus could have been pointing to himself, covering all of this -the context, the nearness to the rock (Peter )already mentioned.
Could be be .I would not use stone .I have seen more rock/rockmass, not stone /rock…in summary dear Catholics , we have discussed the possibilities .Yes, He spoke in aramaic, probably said kepha/kepha. Jesus did not say you are kepha and upon you I will build , nor did He say you are kepha and upon Me /this revelation I will build.The greek does differentiate with rock/rockmass.Corinthians has scripture referring to Jesus as both (petros and petra) .I understand you say this is just “literary” punditry ,or at least one of your quoted scholars said this. I have stated before that even if one concedes Peter is this rock , for indeed he is a rock,as per the discourse here and earlier on in the gospel , from Jesus and indeed we all agree he ,along with the eleven, are our foundation. Even so ,then what ? The scholars you quoted , where do they go from there, after admitting Peter indeed is this rock ? Do they go on to say this was his appointment to be head ,that from him the others received keys or successors .Indeed do these scholars say this is correct foundation for the pope ? So again, even if Peter is rock , even given keys , does that lead to papal doctrine ? The fact is , early on half the church never bought papal doctrine as projected by the western /Roman church . Again ,from my understanding of the Orthodox , they do not have the Roman pope as their head patriarch.Yet , they are not leaderless, have structure /bishops/ deacons, even had patriarchs. I believe you are in good company, but so is anyone who believes Peter is this rock and had keys, and was first among equals , but just do not see any papal office or such succession of power…Scripture is much more clear that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, and the 12 apostles forming our church foundation. It is also clear that by divine revelation and drawing of the Father we see the Son and are born upon that building/body/bride/kingdom begun 2000 years ago.Blessings.I

I know that when I received First Holy Communion, I was very concerned that I might faint or collapse from the wonderfulness (for lack of a better word). As an Catholic, how can you you forget that experience?

 

[karaleigh]

Literal or Symbolic?..

From other posts, the feeling I get is that the intent of Jesus and Peter is not the issue, but the rock or stone. When Jesus and Peter is the issue.

I want to clarify one thing from my point of interest. Peter taught among the man-god colonies in Greece. His teachings were controversial at the time and something that caused the death of his followers as well as his own life as written by Emperor Nero…Nero burnt them to death as his own pleasure.

If literal is used, Peter’s mission among Jesus’ disciples, may be seen as a warning of the man-god worships with their demon behaviors. If symbolic is used, then the stone or rock is what Satan offered Jesus as food in obedience to evil. Through Peter teaching, being rather apocalyptic, the ‘Church’ was subject to the ravages of man-gods i.e. Satan, and with the faithful’s offerings returned with stones as the nourishment. Greek worship is man-god. It may be wise to remember early followers of Peter’s teaching were stoned and then burned at the stake. That is what happened literally to the church then, as it does today.

Christianity has become so full of mysticism that the literal context of the Holy Bible has become mystical as well…sad, very, very sad! With a foundation of knowledge within their hands, the physical church as ended up in mysticism.