F
fasolislithuan
Guest
CONTINUATION 2/2
There are a lot of hopeless variations of this anti-paronomasia theory. For example
b1) The argument that if the evangelist Matthew had wanted to maintain the paronomasia it would be more logical the use of Petros/petroi because is a better preservation of the paronomasia and elude the problem of the gender ‘Petros/petra’. But this is only another basseless and contrived protestant contra-argument. The reason is easy. Never, in the NT ‘petros’ is used to refer any kind of object, rock, stone etc (0 times). The other side of the coin: Always ‘Petros’ in the NT is refered to the apostle Peter (156 times). So the use of petros or its dative petroi to refer rock, stone,etc… although possible, is inexistent in the evangelists and the rest of NT writers. At the contrary ‘petra’ appears 15 times as meaning ‘rock’. This is sufficient to refute the theory that Petros/petroi is more suitable that Petros/petra because there is no evidence that apostles used the word ‘petros’ to refer anything except Peter, but there are 15 evidences that they used ‘petra’ to refer any kind of rock. Petros/petroi cannot elude the gender problem first because there is not evidence that apostles used, at least, in the NT the word ‘petros’ to refer objects as rock or similar, and second because Matthew uses the ‘Petros/petra’ duet to resolve efficiently the conflict. The fact is that, although ‘petros’ is synonymous of ‘petra’ in greek the NT’ writers always prefer to use the word ‘petra’ to refer an object, rock and Petros to refer the apostle. That’s unquestionable. The consideration that Petros/petroi preserve better the paronomasia than Petros/petra is a bizarre argument because the later pair builds a paronomasia equally functional than the former and the former is not more effective as paronomasia than the later. Only Petros/petros would be a perfect match to ‘Kepha/kepha’ but that’s no the case.
Therefore the ‘Petros/petra’ is the better and correct election for this passage. And that’s the only reason why in Matthew 16:18 appears ‘Petros/petra’ and not ‘Petros/petroi’
c) The last recurse that protestant use to deny the original paronomasia is another weird argument. They claim that the repetion of the word ‘kepha’ in the two instances of the original aramaic breaks the pun or paronomasia. The reason is because the same word with the identical meaning is not a paronomasia. So ‘kepha/kepha’ is not a paronomasia but a redundancy and consequently the original text in aramaic has to be different. The theory is correct but there is a serious problem. First of all: It’s false both ‘kepha’ have identical meaning in this biblical passage. The full meaning of a word doesn’t have only intrinsic aspects, its real meaning comes with the context and with the referents. Let’s remember: The first instance is refered to the proper name of the apostle Simon (Barjona). It’s not refered ‘prima facie’ to any kind of object, rock, stone, etc… The second instance is refered to an object (a rock or a stone). The first instance, i.e., the apostle Peter, achieves the meaning of rock ‘mediate’ (by means of) the paronomasia, is the wordplay what links semanticly both instances. So, contrary to the protestant defective reasoning the kepha/kepha is here not a redundancy but a perfect paronomasia, a brilliant, even a superlative paronomasia. Is not Peter faith but all Peter (faith, person and name) who is the rock of the Church by delegation of Christ’s divine decree
As I say in the beginning human interpretations have always solid and weak points. That’s the problem of any fallible opinion (mine, yours, etc…). But you know? The conflict of divergences cannot be resolved by means of our fallible interpretations. Yes, from a human perspective we have good tools to achieve plausible explanations of many things, even to interpret the Bible. For example, in this issue, if apostle Peter is or not the rock upon Jesus built His Church we have a lot of valid testimonies. I personally prefer to trust in** scholars that have a deep knowledge of apostolic teaching** about this issue. And these scholars are not Luther, neither Calvin, much less me or you or any modern expert in Bible. The scholars who were immersed in the apostolic teachings were the Church Fathers of the Apostolic Age. To make matters better those Church Fathers not study greek koine and get a degree in Classic Languages as some of our contermporaries scholars, they lived in greek koine, they were raised in greek koine, and as we would say in Spain: “No aprendieron el griego koine. Lo mamaron” (They didn’t learn greek koine, they sucked (nursed) it). They are the real experts in greek koine to interpret the Scriptures and the more difficult passages in their mother language. Do you want to know if they say that Peter is the rock upon Christ built His Church? The answer is yes. This fact is irrefutable because is verifiable.
But do you know? Not even their judgements and knowledge guarantees inerrancy.** The only that guarantees inerrancy in the interpretation of Sacred Scriptures is the infalibility that Christ promised to His apostolic Church, His judgement is infallible whereas our interprations disagree and are fallible**. That’s why Christ has given to His Church a divine power “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:15-18). Its infallibility nature is transmitted by apostolic sucession,and its infallibility teaching remains in its Sacred Tradition and in its Magisterium. That’s the irrefutable reason that I can say with absolute certainty that Peter is the rock upon Christ has built His Church.
There are a lot of hopeless variations of this anti-paronomasia theory. For example
b1) The argument that if the evangelist Matthew had wanted to maintain the paronomasia it would be more logical the use of Petros/petroi because is a better preservation of the paronomasia and elude the problem of the gender ‘Petros/petra’. But this is only another basseless and contrived protestant contra-argument. The reason is easy. Never, in the NT ‘petros’ is used to refer any kind of object, rock, stone etc (0 times). The other side of the coin: Always ‘Petros’ in the NT is refered to the apostle Peter (156 times). So the use of petros or its dative petroi to refer rock, stone,etc… although possible, is inexistent in the evangelists and the rest of NT writers. At the contrary ‘petra’ appears 15 times as meaning ‘rock’. This is sufficient to refute the theory that Petros/petroi is more suitable that Petros/petra because there is no evidence that apostles used the word ‘petros’ to refer anything except Peter, but there are 15 evidences that they used ‘petra’ to refer any kind of rock. Petros/petroi cannot elude the gender problem first because there is not evidence that apostles used, at least, in the NT the word ‘petros’ to refer objects as rock or similar, and second because Matthew uses the ‘Petros/petra’ duet to resolve efficiently the conflict. The fact is that, although ‘petros’ is synonymous of ‘petra’ in greek the NT’ writers always prefer to use the word ‘petra’ to refer an object, rock and Petros to refer the apostle. That’s unquestionable. The consideration that Petros/petroi preserve better the paronomasia than Petros/petra is a bizarre argument because the later pair builds a paronomasia equally functional than the former and the former is not more effective as paronomasia than the later. Only Petros/petros would be a perfect match to ‘Kepha/kepha’ but that’s no the case.
Therefore the ‘Petros/petra’ is the better and correct election for this passage. And that’s the only reason why in Matthew 16:18 appears ‘Petros/petra’ and not ‘Petros/petroi’
c) The last recurse that protestant use to deny the original paronomasia is another weird argument. They claim that the repetion of the word ‘kepha’ in the two instances of the original aramaic breaks the pun or paronomasia. The reason is because the same word with the identical meaning is not a paronomasia. So ‘kepha/kepha’ is not a paronomasia but a redundancy and consequently the original text in aramaic has to be different. The theory is correct but there is a serious problem. First of all: It’s false both ‘kepha’ have identical meaning in this biblical passage. The full meaning of a word doesn’t have only intrinsic aspects, its real meaning comes with the context and with the referents. Let’s remember: The first instance is refered to the proper name of the apostle Simon (Barjona). It’s not refered ‘prima facie’ to any kind of object, rock, stone, etc… The second instance is refered to an object (a rock or a stone). The first instance, i.e., the apostle Peter, achieves the meaning of rock ‘mediate’ (by means of) the paronomasia, is the wordplay what links semanticly both instances. So, contrary to the protestant defective reasoning the kepha/kepha is here not a redundancy but a perfect paronomasia, a brilliant, even a superlative paronomasia. Is not Peter faith but all Peter (faith, person and name) who is the rock of the Church by delegation of Christ’s divine decree
As I say in the beginning human interpretations have always solid and weak points. That’s the problem of any fallible opinion (mine, yours, etc…). But you know? The conflict of divergences cannot be resolved by means of our fallible interpretations. Yes, from a human perspective we have good tools to achieve plausible explanations of many things, even to interpret the Bible. For example, in this issue, if apostle Peter is or not the rock upon Jesus built His Church we have a lot of valid testimonies. I personally prefer to trust in** scholars that have a deep knowledge of apostolic teaching** about this issue. And these scholars are not Luther, neither Calvin, much less me or you or any modern expert in Bible. The scholars who were immersed in the apostolic teachings were the Church Fathers of the Apostolic Age. To make matters better those Church Fathers not study greek koine and get a degree in Classic Languages as some of our contermporaries scholars, they lived in greek koine, they were raised in greek koine, and as we would say in Spain: “No aprendieron el griego koine. Lo mamaron” (They didn’t learn greek koine, they sucked (nursed) it). They are the real experts in greek koine to interpret the Scriptures and the more difficult passages in their mother language. Do you want to know if they say that Peter is the rock upon Christ built His Church? The answer is yes. This fact is irrefutable because is verifiable.
But do you know? Not even their judgements and knowledge guarantees inerrancy.** The only that guarantees inerrancy in the interpretation of Sacred Scriptures is the infalibility that Christ promised to His apostolic Church, His judgement is infallible whereas our interprations disagree and are fallible**. That’s why Christ has given to His Church a divine power “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:15-18). Its infallibility nature is transmitted by apostolic sucession,and its infallibility teaching remains in its Sacred Tradition and in its Magisterium. That’s the irrefutable reason that I can say with absolute certainty that Peter is the rock upon Christ has built His Church.