Matthew 16:18 controversy

[tgGodsway]

I’ve been educating myself to this subject from the standpoint of Greek scholars. Gateway.com has a site that has a compelling argument. With the understanding that Rome uses the Aramaic text for Matthew 16:18 because the Aramaic word for Peter and Rock is the same word. KE’PHA This solves the problem for them. But the Aramaic text has its own set of problems I will bring up later.

The Greek text of Matt. 16:18 uses two separate and different words in the passage. Petros, the name given to the Apostle, Petra, the word used for rock. Rome says that “Peter” Petros is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun Petra and therefore means the same thing.

But Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words Petros and Petra as two different words. According to Liddell and Scott writers of the English Lexicon, said "Petros is “distinct from Petra” E. Heracl. 1002 says it means “panta kinesai petron” “Leaves no stone unturned” c. pl.Lg.843 X HG 3.520 “Petrous epekulindoun” “they rolled down stones.”
Note: Petros, a stone, smaller moveable stone (heracletes uses it in the phrase “leave no stone unturned.” So a Petros is a stone which can be turned over, hence a moveable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said, “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different word.

This matters in the debate.

 

[pianistclare]

Here you go:

Peter the Rock | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[ahs]

Jesus didn’t speak in Greek. He said, “…[you are] Kepha, [and on this] Kepha [I will build my Church]…” The Greek was a translation of the original spoken language. So, aside from the fact that you already noted, “…Petros is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun Petra and therefore means the same thing…”, there’s nothing to argue about in regards to the Greek. On to the Aramaic…

 

[steve-b]

I’ve been educating myself to this subject from the standpoint of Greek scholars. Gateway.com has a site that has a compelling argument. With the understanding that Rome uses the Aramaic text for Matthew 16:18 because the Aramaic word for Peter and Rock is the same word. KE’PHA This solves the problem for them. But the Aramaic text has its own set of problems I will bring up later.

The Greek text of Matt. 16:18 uses two separate and different words in the passage. Petros, the name given to the Apostle, Petra, the word used for rock. Rome says that “Peter” Petros is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun Petra and therefore means the same thing.

But Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words Petros and Petra as two different words. According to Liddell and Scott writers of the English Lexicon, said "Petros is “distinct from Petra” E. Heracl. 1002 says it means “panta kinesai petron” “Leaves no stone unturned” c. pl.Lg.843 X HG 3.520 “Petrous epekulindoun” “they rolled down stones.”
Note: Petros, a stone, smaller moveable stone (heracletes uses it in the phrase “leave no stone unturned.” So a Petros is a stone which can be turned over, hence a moveable stone. Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said, “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different word.

This matters in the debate.

Those words have gender

This conversation is between Jesus and Peter. Both men, both referenced as rocks. In that passage, Is Jesus then the Petra (a female) and Peter is the Petros (a male)?

Who then is Petra in that passage.

 

[KatyCatholic]

Just my note of caution. There may very well be many other sources of information about Christ and his ministry. Lots of history, study, and deep insights into the whole mystery of God. However, we have to affirm that the Bible as sacred scripture, is what is provided for the faithful elect to have as a source of holy scripture.

In other words, we may find a historical essay that says something like, “when we look at the current translation of the gospel, Jesus says in the Our Father to ‘give us our daily bread’ when you look at the REAL translation and the bible has it wrong because the true translation as scholars have developed within the last 10 years is that it says ‘give us our needed bread’”

The danger here is that we are using scholastic and historical tools to dig into the scripture ourselves to find the meaning. The real danger is that the true meaning has already been defined, the prayer is ‘our daily bread’ because that’s what it says in the gospels.

If the historical or otherwise scholastic investigations shed more light or insight on the whole topic of religion and God that would help you have a better perspective and understanding of the truth, wonderful and great! Though, just because there may be a new insight or a perspective to look at the truth to understand it, it doesn’t change the truth. And, of course, don’t let any insight or perspective to distort the truth.

 

[PJM]

My dear friend in Christ,

As POST #2 explains, Jesus Spoke Aramaic not Greek.

Strongs Greek /Hebrew Lexicon

Result of search for “Peter”:

1. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

---

1. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786

Result of search for “Cephas”:
2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas.

www.agapebiblestudy.com: “Cephas” is the Greek transliteration of Peter’s Aramaic name “Rock” = Kepha, or perhaps in Galilean Aramaic “Qepha”. Only John among the Gospels gives this form of Peter’s name but it is also the preferred name that St. Paul uses when he writes about Peter.”

Jesus finishes the 16:17 verse by saying in Aramaic: Mt. 16:18 “So I now say to YOU: You are “Peter [Kepha] and on this rock [kepha] I will build my church [ekklesia].” {SINGULAR} The key to understanding why Jesus called Peter the son of Jonah comes from the buildup of the Jonah passages that come before his final announcement of Simon as Kepa = Rock in Aramaic.” … “John tells us that Jesus told Simon he was “rock” very early in their relationship. It is later inMatthew’s account in chapter 16 that Simon/Peter is given formally the title “Rock” in the presence of all the other Apostles. “Rock” is one of God’s titles. In the Song of Witness that Moses and Joshua are instructed to teach the Children of Israel to sing as part of their liturgical worship the title “Rock” for God is used 5 times. Christ is also identified as the “Rock” in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5.

But only 2 men in Salvation history are called “rock”. They are Abraham [Isaiah 51: 1-2] and Peter. Abraham was the physical “rock” from which the Children of Israel were formed but Peter is to be the spiritual “Rock”, the father of the New Covenant children of Israel’the universal [catholic] Church! When God changes a man’s name it is an indication of a change in destiny. Simon’s name change indicated God’s plan for his destiny. He will be the “rock,” that is a firm foundation upon which the Church will be built[Matthew 7:24-27].”

God Bless you

 

[JasonL69]

It’s quite easy really.

Jesus in Greek is Iesous. It is a contraction of IO-va and ZEUS, the former being the Roman equivalent of the Greek latter, the king of the gods.
Contract JEsus with PETRA/Petros etc in the same way and you get Jupiter, which was the other Roman name for Iova or Greek Zeus. Jupiter, as you know is also a planet.
Hence the name change for Simon.
It is confirmed later in Colossians 4:11 where Jesus is also called Justus… Again the contractions work.

It also explains why Jesus wasn’t called Emmanuel as the prophecies stated.

You can do the same with the Sun. In Latin it is Sol. The Greek god of the Sun was Apollo. SOL/POL… Saul/Paul.

Maria, or Mary, is Mars and Ares.

Lazarus is Luna and Selene… the moon dies and then it is reborn.

Michael and Martha are Mercury and Hermes.

Saturn of course is Satan. Saturn was the father of Jupiter in Roman myth.

Venus is the ‘morning star’ referenced in Revelation. She was also the goddess of doves, giving the Holy Spirit, and the goddess of Love, a recurring theme in the New Testament.

And so the seven ‘Classical Planets’, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Sun and Moon, those visible from Earth are the seven heads of the beast. The one that is cut and grows back is Luna, the Moon.

As for 666, in Greek it is χξϛ which in the original Greek ‘might be a number’. It is in fact CHi Xi STigma… put the capital letters together and you get Christ, the ‘number’ of a man.

The mark of the beast on the right hand is simple. Look up the symbol for Jupiter. It loos like a two and a four combined. Point your right hand downwards. Your life line, fate line and heart line will form the shape.

The same symbol for Jupiter also resembles an ear tied to a sword. Read Revelation 13. Ear: Captive: Sword…

Sorry guys. Jesus is Jupiter, a mix of Roman and Greek mythology and a planet. The red spot is where he was speared.

 

[De_Maria]

I’ve been educating myself to this subject from the standpoint of Greek scholars.

I just want to note that you are going outside the Bible alone to understand the Bible. Good for you.

Gateway.com has a site that has a compelling argument. …I will bring up later.

Ok.

…Petros is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun Petra and therefore means the same thing.

Yes.

But Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words Petros and Petra as two different words. …

1. You have to go to Greek scholars to rely upon them to interpret the Scriptures to you.
2. Do you know these people? Their character, their honesty, their faithfulness?

I doubt it.

We also have to go to Greek scholars to rely upon them to interpret the Scriptures for us. These Greek scholars are the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers. All members of the Church which Jesus Christ established. We don’t know them personally, but we have faith that they were holy men who followed Christ, many of them, to their death.

If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said, “epi tauto to petro” (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as “Petros.” But what he said was “Epi taute te petra” using Petra, a different word.

I suppose there are many things that Jesus COULD have said. But He didn’t. You are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my Church.

This matters in the debate.

To you. Because you are protesting God’s Church. Not for any other reason.

 

[De_Maria]

Will you look at that! The Holy Spirit was preparing the Greek and Roman pagans for the coming of Christ! Allelujah!

 

[JasonL69]

Yup, just like Easter, a pagan festival, and Saturnalia (Christmas)…

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Except Matthew’s gospel was written in Aramaic. So who then are Yeshua and Kepha in your theory?

 

[JasonL69]

No, it was written in Greek.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote,

“Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Was Matthew's Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Is there no evidence that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic? As a matter of fact, there is some evidence. Click here to see it.

www.catholic.com

 

[tgGodsway]

Read your argument pianistclare,

The problem is that you do not have the original manuscript of the Aramaic text. Just like we do not have the original Greek text. But the Greek language was the universal language at the time and the thousands of copies (including the discarded ones) all translate Matthew 16:18 in the same way. Not to mention the fact that all of the other gospels were also written in Greek. Those who believe Matthew was written in Aramaic are only few in comparison to a large consensus of scholars who believe Matthew was written in Greek.

If the Greek text was merely a translation of the Aramaic original text, there would be some kind of discrepancy in Matthew 16:18 in the copies, seeing that the Aramaic text uses only one word for Rock. Kepha.

To say that the thousands of copies translated into Greek, where Petros and Petra were used, without good reason, (in the face of KEPHA, ) is a hard pill to swallow. Naaaa…

The original manuscript was written in Greek and the play on words was deliberately employed by Christ. Scholars say that Matthew got much of his information from Mark, a gospel also written in Greek and the similarities in Greek are too many to overcome.

But, as I’ve said on this subject before. It really doesn’t matter whether or not we can get the Greek scholars to all agree. The Matthew 16:18 passage still does NOT say what Rome insist that is says. There is zero evidence that Christ wanted to set up a “human” head of the Church in the form of an institutional hierarchy here on earth over the entire world If He did, the other Apostles would have confirmed and agreed with such an effort, and shown evidence of it. There is no biblical evidence that Peter saw himself as “head” over the Church or that others yielded to such a thought. That is biblical fact!

None of the Apostles treated him as such. That is a biblical fact. Peter was an apostle, according to inspired scripture but if the holy Spirit wanted us to know that Peter’s position evolved into the Bishop of Rome, which would eventually become in charge of the entire Church around the world in the form of an institutional hierarchy, (which cancels out the biblical meaning of the word Church) it would have been abundantly clear. It is not even close. That is a fact.

Any extra-biblical witness who cannot be proven to be under the inspiration of holy Spirit (lest they be contained in the volume of scripture) and thus their far removed opinions and perception is not enough to pass the biblical test of orthodoxy and apostolic teaching,

which begins with: upon the mouth of two or three let every word be established.

 

[qmitchell30]

There is also zero scriptural evidence Jesus intended for the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. Also, you are very liberal with the use of “that is a fact” when there is plenty of evidence on the clear meaning of scripture, only when there is a bias from the reader do meanings get distorted. Also, there are several passages when Paul instructs men to be appointed as the heads of churches in different cities, implying a hierarchy.

 

[tgGodsway]

I disagree with your opening statement. There is an underlying principle that God has spoken in Christ. He is the Word of God.

The fact that Christ has returned to heaven and has sat down at the right hand of the Father, speaks volumes to the principle that God through Christ has finished his work here on earth, thus He has sad down. The new testament revelation has been deposited “once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 1 (the verse is in the past tense, it is a finished work.)

Anyone claiming extra biblical revelation must come under the scrutiny of the Apostle’s doctrine. Any revelation that contradicts the apostles doctrine is a false revelation. Lets not forget the principle of “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses , let every word be established.” This principle is foundational to any claim of revelation. If any 21 Century revelation can be validated and confirmed by the principles and direct teaching of the apostolic church, then that revelation may be considered of God, upon the mouth of two or three. Thus much like prophetic gift found in 1st. Cor. 14, each word is to be judged in light of holy scripture.

As to hierarchy issues. Please give me one example
where the Apostle Paul or any of the Apostles tried to override a local Pastor or Elder in terms of submission to them.

In the 4th. Century the Church at Rome wanted to rule the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, to which there was much push-back. The Churches in the east did not recognize such a power-grab.

Just the basic word “Church” itself has nothing to do with hierarchy. The entire body of Christ is called to be the Church in every culture and civilization but not by the dictates of one person in one town, namely Rome. This is patterned nowhere in scripture. To the opposite.

 

[po18guy]

Biblegateway, despite its usefulness, is a protestant site. It, and its opinions could not have existed before 16th century Europe and the radical overturning of revealed Christianity. They are expressing private opinion, as they have no divine warrant to authoritatively reveal the origins of the faith.

Their “argument” is a red herring in that they are parsing words to justify division the Body of Christ. Christ spoke Aramaic, as 100% of His direct quotes are in that language. To assert that He spoke Greek is once again to invent a new religion based loosely on Christ.

I feel sorry for them, as they are simply making things up - having no knowledge base from the Apostles.

 

[po18guy]

What? AYKM? Where did Jesus - not the bible - but our Lord, teach that we are to use the 27 books of the New Testament as any rule at all, let alone the man-made “sole rule”? Where did He enumerate the hundreds of writings presented as scripture and tell the Apostles which 27 of them were inspired?

He did not! He founded a Church and the Church (as in Acts 15) ruled on the very bible you hold in your hands.

Where did Jesus teach bible alone?

He did not. European man did.

Jesus sent the Apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit. Zero writing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

“He who hears you hears Me” - Is this not clear?

The rest of your assertions are not only false, but historically inaccurate.

What is your true purpose here?

 

[tgGodsway]

Oh my goodness. You act as if God can only use Roman Catholic thought. It is as if He is restricted to use only those like-minded people who are within the sphere of Rome.

I submit to you that our God is so much greater than that. He has bible scholars and historians in many places of society and the Church who are well versed in their skill of the Greek language and history. Guess what, not all of them are Catholic. I know… it’s hard to believe,

The Evangelical Church has bible scholars who carry a Dr. and a PHD behind their name. I know, it is shocking. They also know how to study Church history not seeing it in the Catholic way. Yes… they form biases just like you do. and yes, they must overcome those biases as they seek the truth with the help of the (same) holy Spirit. But you do not seek the truth. You believe you have arrived.

I never said that Jesus spoke in Greek. If I did, I mis-spoke. I said the Holy Spirit recorded it in Greek when Matthew wrote. This was the universal and common language. The argument that Matthew was written in Aramaic is unconvincing to me.

But your overall argument is like a telling a grammar teacher that they do not know how to articulate the rules of grammar because they did not originate the English language. That is stupid at best, but sounding very arrogant.

There is no private opinion. The opposite is true. Their opinion based on their skill to read and translate the Greek language is laid out for all to see and hear. The problem is it just doesn’t jive with your pre-conceived ideas.

Yes God has bible and historian scholars outside of Rome! It has been this way since the beginning of the Church, but don’t tell Rome, they won’t like that.

And by the way, I have met more “protestors” on this web site than at any time in my entire Christian life and I’ve been in Christ for over 36 years.

There is a lot of protesting that goes on against the protestant Church. Why? I’m not sure accept that Satan loves the division.

I agree that protestants should make genuine and heartfelt efforts to love and respect our Catholic brothers, but so should our Catholic brothers and sisters. All I see is a lot of posturing of superiority. Someone will probably respond on this site by saying, “Its because we are superior!” This has already happened. You love to educate, but you refuse to be educated. You have arrived at the knowledge of Christ and off limits to anyone’s instruction unless it has the name Catholic in it. It reminds me of the Apostle Paul’s complaint to the Corinthian Church, where they said, “we are of Cephas!” But Paul rebuked them by saying they were carnal.

 

[qmitchell30]

So I am highly confused. Where did I say Christ is not the Word of God? This statement already worries that you are reading what you want to see into what I am saying. All I said was there is no evidence the Bible, yes the Word of God, is intended to be the sole rule of faith. In fact scripture seems to point state the opposite. “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or by a letter of ours.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15. This shows Gods word exists yes in scripture but also in the traditions passed on by the Apostles that were not written down.

Also, where did I say Christ’s work on earth isn’t finished? He has came and died once for all of our sins.

How do you define revelation that contradicts the Apostles teachings? Is this things that aren’t expressly defined in the New testament? If so, today’s understanding of the Trinity is arguably not defined as it is today in scripture. Also, concepts of justification have also developed over time. So does this contradict Apostles’ teachings?

As to hierarchy there are several things to look at. First, any group is going to have some type of leadership to guide it and hold it together. Whatever church or denomination you are apart of has a hierarchy of some sort.

Secondly, Peter acted as the head of the Apostles in Acts 15. After much debate surrounding circumcision, Peter stood up and settled the issue. If he was not in fact the leader why did the debate on the issue not continue?

Third, Paul established some form of authority over the local churches by established the rules of a man worthy of the various positions in the church in 1 Timothy 3. Being able to establish rules shows authority.

Yes, the all believers make up the body of the Church, but there has to be someone to guide the church or you have thousands of seriously conflicting beliefs, like you do in protestantism.

Lastly, i consider you reading the Church Father. The disciples of the Apostles are a testament to what they were taught, and they are evidence of a hierarchy within the church.