Matthew 16: 13-19

  • Thread starter Thread starter luber05
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

luber05

Guest
Dear brothers in Christ,

An “Evangelical” brother and I have been keeping a debate on the authenticity of Peter as the first Pope.

He refuses to believe that Petros (in Koine Greek) meant ROCK as he holds to the meaning it had 300 years before Matthew was written.

Keating holds that there are original texts of the letters of Paul (1 Corinthians and Galatians) where Paul calls Peter, Rock (Keppa or Kepha), but my brother refutes that those original texts exists.

#1) Where can I find the foundation for the existance of these texts?
#2) Where can I get a copy with a translation or without it?
#3) Where can I find that a Protestant have accepted the translation of Petros as Rock? Is there such proof in the Internet? Somewhere else where I would not have to buy a book?

I am a Catholic missionary and do not have the funds to buy books, just to argue with one man.

Yours in Christ,

Luis
 
40.png
luber05:
Dear brothers in Christ,

An “Evangelical” brother and I have been keeping a debate on the authenticity of Peter as the first Pope.

He refuses to believe that Petros (in Koine Greek) meant ROCK as he holds to the meaning it had 300 years before Matthew was written.

Keating holds that there are original texts of the letters of Paul (1 Corinthians and Galatians) where Paul calls Peter, Rock (Keppa or Kepha), but my brother refutes that those original texts exists.

#1) Where can I find the foundation for the existance of these texts?
#2) Where can I get a copy with a translation or without it?
#3) Where can I find that a Protestant have accepted the translation of Petros as Rock? Is there such proof in the Internet? Somewhere else where I would not have to buy a book?

I am a Catholic missionary and do not have the funds to buy books, just to argue with one man.

Yours in Christ,

Luis
Click to expand...
Ask him where he gets his documentation from. The Aramiac word for rock is Kephas or Petros. And Rock in Aramiac therefore only has one meaning Kephas. Patrick Madrid even states in Pope Fiction that the original manuscripts of St. Matthew’s gospel were written Aramaic. It is true that in St. Paul’s letters he uses the word Rock to refer to Christ, but the parts are not always interchangable. So this Evangelical Christian friend of yours is just simply using sloppy exegesis. I can also assure you that the Church did its archeology long before the Protestants did theirs.
 
i doubt that his attitude would change in you handed his hand written text from one of matthews scribes…

for those that believe no explanation is necessary…and so on… and so it goes…
 
Are you referring to the theory that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written in Aramaic? If the text existed, we no longer have it.

Other than the Greek manuscripts, there is the Aramaic Pesh!tta, which dates back to at least the fourth century, perhaps even earlier. In this text, keepa is used for both Simon’s name and the rock on which Jesus builds his Church. I’m not sure how convincing that would be for your friend, though.

A helpful resource for the Matthew 16 debate is the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. You’ll find it in Catholic and Protestant university libraries. This Protestant commentary makes the case for Petros=Petra=Kepha.
 
Dear brother,

I am sorry. Perhaps I did not explain myself well.

These issues, I have down.

What I am searching is for:

#1) Where can I find a copy of these Aramaic texts? You see; it will never be enough to talk or write about them. If you only mention them, then the only thing a person who wants to oposse you would have to do is to say: I don’t believe those exist!!!

End of the argument!!!

He is using sloppy exegesis insofar as to the fact that he is quoting some David Bivin who has written a lot of sloppy exegesis, but who is acclaimed as “the man” on the interpretation of the text of Matthew regarding Petros the Pebble and some absurd theory which stands on the affirmation that Jesus taught in Greek!!!

Of course: ABSURD!!!, but regardless, it demands to be confronted with the original Aramaic quotation and text.

Once again; not to say that the Aramaic said or did not say, but to SHOW what the Aramaic said and did not say.

#2) A respectful Protestant source who would refute what this fanatics are saying. Both their leader (DAVID BIVIN) and their followers. One Protestant.

Last, but not least, although I am grateful for your message, I have to say that I need to be lead to the texts and not to what Madrid or Keating have said.

I cannot quote Madrid and/or Keating; as the authorities these fanatics owe to pay attention to.

In Christ,

Luis
40.png
bones_IV:
Ask him where he gets his documentation from. The Aramiac word for rock is Kephas or Petros. And Rock in Aramiac therefore only has one meaning Kephas. Patrick Madrid even states in Pope Fiction that the original manuscripts of St. Matthew’s gospel were written Aramaic. It is true that in St. Paul’s letters he uses the word Rock to refer to Christ, but the parts are not always interchangable. So this Evangelical Christian friend of yours is just simply using sloppy exegesis. I can also assure you that the Church did its archeology long before the Protestants did theirs.
Click to expand...
 
I know this, too, brother.

Its not about changing or not changing him!!! Its about backing up something that our Church says in front of I don’t know how many other witnesses to these arguments.

Please, brother, I do ask you to please consider what you answer to the petitions of the persons who come into these forums.

You are not giving a solution, but an impediment.

No; thanks.

If I came here was to get an answer, not to be told why not to bother with seeking an answer.

In Christ,

Luis
40.png
LoneRanger:
i doubt that his attitude would change in you handed his hand written text from one of matthews scribes…

for those that believe no explanation is necessary…and so on… and so it goes…
Click to expand...
 
**AS IT SAYS ON 2 SAMUEL 12: 7: YOU DA’ MAN !!!
THANKS!!!
**
40.png
Vincent:
Are you referring to the theory that the Gospel according to Matthew was originally written in Aramaic? If the text existed, we no longer have it.

Other than the Greek manuscripts, there is the Aramaic Pesh!tta, which dates back to at least the fourth century, perhaps even earlier. In this text, keepa is used for both Simon’s name and the rock on which Jesus builds his Church. I’m not sure how convincing that would be for your friend, though.

A helpful resource for the Matthew 16 debate is the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. You’ll find it in Catholic and Protestant university libraries. This Protestant commentary makes the case for Petros=Petra=Kepha.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top