Matthew 16 question

  • Thread starter Thread starter mozart-250
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Holy Spirit used Petros for Peter and Petra for Jesus (or Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God). The Bible uses Petra in every instance after. There is definitely a distinction. The Bible says to build on Petra, not Petros. If you guys just read your bibles you would find that Peter could not be pope.

Mat 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros = movable stone), and upon this rock (petra - large massive rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter’s answer to Jesus’ earlier question “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”

Mat 7:24 ¶
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock (Petra):

Mat 7:25
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock (Petra)

Luk 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock (Petra): and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded

1Cr 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that **Rock (Petra) was Christ
**
 
)The Easton’s bible dictionary (Protestant) tells us “Jesus at once recognized Simon, and declared that hereafter he would be called Cephas, an Aramaic name corresponding to the Greek Petros, which means ‘a mass of rock’ …It is he who utters that notable profession of faith at Capernaum (John 6:66-69), and again at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20). This profession at Caesarea was one of supreme importance, and our Lord in response used these memorable words: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

2)The Pocket Bible Dictionary ©1996 (Protestant) says “Pe’ter (Rock), Syriac, CEPHAS (Rock)… His original name was Simon or Simeon but when he was called to the apostleship the Lord gave him the name Peter (CEPHAS) Matthew.16:18, with a prophetic reference to what he should do and be for the church.”

3)The Bible Encyclopedia ©1941(Protestant) tells us"Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is Cepha, which is what Jesus called him in every-day speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was thus: “You are Cepha, and upon this Cepha I will build my Church.”

4)The Bible Cyclopedia, 1914 (Protestant) says"Peter. Of Bethsaida on the sea of Galilee. The Gr. For Heb. Cephas, “rock.”… As “Simon” he was but a hearer; as Peter or Cephas he became an apostle and the foundation rock of the Church. (Matt. 16:18-19)"

5)The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (Protestant), ©1962, Vol. II, p. 1815 says"The Aramaic word for ‘rock’ is Cepha, and this is without a doubt the word that Jesus used in reference to Peter. In the early Aramaic-speaking Church P. (Peter) was not doubt called ‘Cephas.’…Abundant evidence in the New Testament shows that Peter acted as the head of the apostles during the earthly life of Christ as well as after Christ’s ascension into Heaven;" …He is the first to publicly profess his faith in Christ, and on this occasion, at Caesarea Philippi, Christ promises him the primacy in His Church (Mt 16:16-19), a promise fulfilled after Christ’s resurrection when Peter makes a threefold protestation of his undying love for Him (Jn 21,15ff), to atone for his three-fold denial of Him (Mt 26:69-75)."
 
Peter as the Rock:

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19] . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“There [John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (Letters 66[69]:8).

Firmilian

“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

“[Pope] Stephen * . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18] . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian***
 
“Kagoo de soi legoo hoti su ei Petros (in the original Aramaic “Cepha”), kai epi tautee tee petra (in the original Aramaic “Cepha”) oikodomeesoo mou teen ekkleesian, kai pulai Hadou ou katischusousin autees.” (Matthew 16:18)
Code:
    We all have heard Protestants say "Any honest Greek authority can tell you that Our Lord did NOT call Peter a 'rock' and tell him that on him the church was founded. What He said was: "Thou art Peter (a small stone) and on this rock (petra)-the rock of which thou art an isolated fragment (or rock of truth which thou hast confessed) I will build My church."

    This "Comment" could be dismissed with the indisputable declaration that  "Jesus Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic"(Wold Book Encyclopedia 1999). The Semitic language that the Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says was "akin to Hebrew, (and) became the common tongue about the year 300 b.c.e." (before the common era, the A.D. era). The Aramaic word for rock is "Cephas," without any change of gender, such as in the Greek; where thou art "Petros" is masculine, and "Petra" feminine, in the translation of Matt. 16:18-19 from Aramaic into Greek.

    If you Prophetics will study St. John 1:42 in an unbiased manner, you will see that Simon was called "Cephas," the rock, by Christ in Ceasarea Philippi two years before He announced, as recorded in Matt. 16:18, that Peter was to be the head of the Church Christ built. Your stale Protestant endeavor to make Peter "an isolated fragment of stone," is a denial of St. Paul's concept, who called Peter "Cephas," the rock, on four occasions, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5

    For most Bible scholars to question as to whether or not Peter was the "Rock" or a "Stone" is really a old and dead discussion. but unfortunately we live the world suffering from a severe case of "lack of imagination" for many Protestants have a hard time dealing with the sacred scripture Matthew 16:18, to put it simply they have run out to a novel arguments against the scripture in the authority of Peter. So we see this same old dead argument thrown up over And over. it is to these unimaginative desperate Protestants I dedicate this article. below high list 35 highly dependent resources backing the biblical fact that Christ called Simon "Cephas" an Aramaic name which means "Rock". It is important to note that NOT ONE of these citations comes from a Catholic source, the references I list  come from Protestant or secular resources. I follow-up the citations with a large number of statements from the early church fathers verifying that they clearly understood Peter to be THE ROCK ON WHICH CHRIST BUILT HIS CHURCH.

    Peter was the first Apostle selected by Christ.

    Peter spoke for the Apostles (Acts 5:29).

    Peter delivered the first Church sermon (Acts 2:14-16).

    Peter made the first Apostolic visit to the churches (Acts 9:31).

    Peter was first to receive the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3).

    Peter cast out the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts 8:20).

    Peter acted as judge in the case of Ananias and Saphira; when he inflicted the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts 5:1-6).

    Peter presided on the occasion when the vacancy among the Apostles was filled, caused by the death of Judas.

    Peter presided at the first Church Council meeting (Jerusalem) (Acts 15).

    Peter's word settled the dispute at the Church Council (Acts15).

    Peter performed the first miracle (Acts 5:16)

For more Proof follow this Link "The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter - 50 New Testament Proofs !!!"
 
Infallibility is not the issue; the only issue is whether Christ intended His church to be centralized or not.
Keep in mind Christ’s prayer that they be as one. I would rely not just on this passage but on the context and on reason to conclude that Christ intended for there to be a single, unified Church. Peter and the succeeding vicars were to serve the Church in various ways but in particular by facilitating that unity.
 
Hi Believers,
You must consider what you’re saying in context. Let’s consider for a moment that you are right, i.e. that Jesus said to Peter, OK, you’re a little rock and on this big rock (either Jesus or Peter’s confession) I will build my Church. Does this actually fit? Picture the scene. Peter had just acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. This was a good thing right? Jesus then insults Peter by calling him a small rock. You’re not enough Peter, I need a big rock to build my Church on. So Jesus blesses Peter first (vs 17), then insults Peter (vs 18) then blesses him again (vs 19). Does this actually fit into the context of the scene? Most serious scholars today don’t think so.
Why would I believe the Catholic Apologist?
Well then maybe you will believe Protestant sources. Many have already been given, but consider the following article, an excerpt of which says:
Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, including Henry Alford, (Anglican: The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983, 119), John Broadus (Reformed Baptist: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886, 355-356), C. F. Keil, Gerhard Kittel (Lutheran: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968, 98-99), Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran: Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd rev. ed., 1962), William F. Albright, Robert McAfee Brown, and more recently, highly-respected evangelical commentators R.T. France, and D.A. Carson, who both surprisingly assert that only Protestant overreaction to Catholic Petrine and papal claims have brought about the denial that Peter himself is the Rock
If these leading scholars (plus Catholic and Orthodox scholars as well) can accept that Peter is the rock spoken of in this passage, on what basis do you insist that Peter is not?

Kind regards,
Knightfall
 
Hi Believers,
You must consider what you’re saying in context. Let’s consider for a moment that you are right, i.e. that Jesus said to Peter, OK, you’re a little rock and on this big rock (either Jesus or Peter’s confession) I will build my Church. Does this actually fit? Picture the scene. Peter had just acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. This was a good thing right? Jesus then insults Peter by calling him a small rock. You’re not enough Peter, I need a big rock to build my Church on. So Jesus blesses Peter first (vs 17), then insults Peter (vs 18) then blesses him again (vs 19). Does this actually fit into the context of the scene? Most serious scholars today don’t think so.
Well then maybe you will believe Protestant sources. Many have already been given, but consider the following article, an excerpt of which says:

If these leading scholars (plus Catholic and Orthodox scholars as well) can accept that Peter is the rock spoken of in this passage, on what basis do you insist that Peter is not?

Kind regards,
Knightfall
Peter himself answers this in his epistle. Peter calls Jesus the rock.

1 Peter 2

4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8 and

“ A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”

Seems Peter knew what Jesus was talking about, that Christ is the rock.

Paul knew Christ is the rock

1 Corinthians 10:3-5

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Jesus Himself shows us those who come to Him are like those that lay there house on rock?

Luke 6:47-49

47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.[a] 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

Are you telling me that Jesus is saying the rock is Peter in the parable of the builder? The context is clear that Jesus Christ is the rock, even Peter himself understood this by evidence in his Epistle.

You all can ignore the overwhelming context that shows Christ as the rock if you want, but the Word of God is clear on the subject.

You are Petros, and on this Petras I shall build my church were the terms used in the original writing. Very similar to Jesus saying He will build this temple in 3 days. He meant Himself.

John 2:18-20

18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

I have showed Peter understood this meant the church would be built on Jesus. Since they all knew the Messiah would reign forever.

Nonetheless, if you insist on this meaning Peter, Jesus did not say, that you are Rock and on the Office of this Rock I will build my church.
 
I didn’t say Jesus never spoke Greek. He could have speak the Greek language. Greek then is the universal language during his time. Galilean spoke Aramaic, Jesus spoke Aramaic.

When Jesus spoke to Pontius Pilate (It’s actually spelled Pilate not pilot), he spoke to him in Latin, the language of the Romans. Jesus is God. I believe he spoke Latin and Greek as easily as he can speak his own tongue.
Sic! I, your avg. Christian, know that Ancient Romans (Pontius Pilate was a Roman) spoke Latin. I learned that in my Latin Class at the PUBLIC High School.

Vale,
SAHM02

NB: Sic is Latin for yes
NB: Vale is Latin for bye

And NB is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase: Nota bene, which means Note Well

Okay, this mini-Latin lesson if over…
I also believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic to Peter.

Just because Jesus could speak multiple languages does NOT mean that Peter could BEFORE Pentecost.
Jesus telling Peter he is the “rock” happened BEFORE Pentecost. Which, in my opinion, means that more and likely it was spoken in Peter and Jesus native tongue Aramaic.

That’s just my :twocents:
 
You all can ignore the overwhelming context that shows Christ as the rock if you want, but the Word of God is clear on the subject.
Well, what about the usage of “rock” in Matthew 27:60. Is that Christ?

I know that was a silly example, but the point is that just because Christ is the rock in the scriptures you cite, it does not necessarily mean that every usage of the word “rock” in scripture is Christ.

You have to look at context to determine meaning. Given the context of Matthew 16, and given that Peter means rock, the simplest reading of this passage it seems to me would be that Peter is the rock within the context of this passage only. Any other interpretation really sounds like overreactive spin.

If you were to put this question on an SAT reading comprehension exam, given that Peter means rock…what would “this rock” be…the correct answer would be Peter.

But you really did not answer my question. We could argue for days on this. Nevertheless it is a historical fact the church centralized. The documentation of the early church seems to indicate this centralization started with Peter. Was this centralization unscriptural?
 
Well, what about the usage of “rock” in Matthew 27:60. Is that Christ?

I know that was a silly example, but the point is that just because Christ is the rock in the scriptures you cite, it does not necessarily mean that every usage of the word “rock” in scripture is Christ.

You have to look at context to determine meaning. Given the context of Matthew 16, and given that Peter means rock, the simplest reading of this passage it seems to me would be that Peter is the rock within the context of this passage only. Any other interpretation really sounds like overreactive spin.
Jesus used similar language such as saying ‘this Temple’ when referring to Him.

Nonetheless it is no less of an overactive spin than the following which is what you are really proposing.

You are Peter, and upon the ‘office of this rock’ I will build my church.

Assuming Peter is the rock, none of the popes are Peter. This verse says nothing about building a rock on popes. That is a spin in itself.

**

1 Peter 2

4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

**

Peter calls all believers living stones. So assuming he is the 'next ’ stone after Christ. Then he calls all believers to follow.

How do you get from Peter, Rock to an Office of Peter being the same rock.
If you were to put this question on an SAT reading comprehension exam, given that Peter means rock…what would “this rock” be…the correct answer would be Peter.
Why do I need to take an exam. I am not a scholar or an intellect. Christ reveals things to babes.

**

Luke 10:21

“I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

**
But you really did not answer my question. We could argue for days on this. Nevertheless it is a historical fact the church centralized. The documentation of the early church seems to indicate this centralization started with Peter. Was this centralization unscriptural?
Yes.
 
But you really did not answer my question. We could argue for days on this. Nevertheless it is a historical fact the church centralized. The documentation of the early church seems to indicate this centralization started with Peter. Was this centralization unscriptural?
Good thoughful questions.

I will give you what I found compelling for the argument of a structure and leadership of the Chruch.

:bible1: John 21:15 -17.

I *originally *read it in the Revised Standard Version in which it uses three separate words for Peter’s affirmation. This is more than Peter taking back His three time denial.

Feed my lambs, Tend my Sheep, Feed my Sheep.

I was rather disappointed to realize that the other versions did not also have the “tend” my sheep but the KJV does in fact have two separate words. Feed my lambs and Feed my Sheep.

Here is a link to both translations, KJV and RVS on the same page.

The explanation I was given with the RSV, (which as I said I have not researched why the difference in translation, for I did not feel the need to) was the lambs represent you and I, the lay people, and the Sheep represent those who take care of the lambs, the leadership of the Church. In the RSV translation, it gives three clear and separate jobs, feeding/teaching the lay people, taking care of the leadership, and feeding the leadership.

Even getting rid of the RSV translation (tend) as no others support it, we can see that there are in fact two different kinds of sheep Peter was to feed. The lambs as well as the sheep.

Who do they lambs represent and who does the sheep represent? The above explanation does seem to explain that.

Or even if you wish to get more general and do not see the distinction made between lamb and sheep, I still believe that we can see Peter being given leadership over the whole Church.

Christ is the shepherd. He is in charge of the safekeeping of the sheep. But in these verses, what did Christ do? He told
Peter to take care of His sheep. He was making Peter a shepherd also. But Christ did not give up His sheep, He told Peter to take care of HIS sheep.

This is exactly the teaching of the Catholic Church. Christ is the head of the Church. And Peter was the steward who was left in charge while the master is gone.

Now there are those who say, “Okay, I see Peter is in charge” But that gift of leadership died with Peter. However, we can clearly see in scripture that when Judas was no longer an apostle, they did not leave that spot empty, they chose another to take His place.

Anyway, these were the most compelling scripture verses to me. When seen in conjunction with other scripture like Matthew 16:18 and the keys I see it as very strong scriptural support that then in fact is also echoed in the writings of the Early Church and support this interpretation of Peter being in charge and a formalized structure at its birth.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
Jesus used similar language such as saying ‘this Temple’ when referring to Him.

Nonetheless it is no less of an overactive spin than the following which is what you are really proposing.

You are Peter, and upon the ‘office of this rock’ I will build my church.

Assuming Peter is the rock, none of the popes are Peter. This verse says nothing about building a rock on popes. That is a spin in itself.
Actually I am not proposing ‘office of this rock’ (remember I am not Catholic). The issue here in this passage is Peter and Peter alone. So I am in agreement this passage is not sufficient to support the papacy of Catholicism, even given the interpretation as Peter (which really reads to me like the best one).
Why do I need to take an exam. I am not a scholar or an intellect. Christ reveals things to babes.
You misunderstood me. I was talking about basic 5th grade reading comprehension. My point was that 99.9 percent of the time the best reading of Scripture is a straightforward reading, one that requires 5th grade reading comprehension level.

To get this word play proposed in Matthew 16, I have to know Greek or trust somebody without an agenda that knows Greek. Why is that necessary?
This is interesting. Answer is in relationship to centralization.

I have heard this said and have always had questions
  • Why do you think a central organization structure is unscriptural?
  • Are centralized Protestant denominations like Southern Baptist unscriptural?
  • How would you achieve and maintain unity without any central structure? What would have prevented the early church from fragmenting into denominations without this central structure?
  • The early church had several challenges. One was the challenge of heresy. How could the early church have handled say Arianism if it were not centralized?
  • Similarly how would the canon have been produced without a central structure.
I have been in non-denoms and denominational churches and from everything I have observed, the denominational ones work better.
 
BTW,

I just had to tell you that even if you reject my explanation in my previous post to you, I am really coming to respect you.

You remind me of Contarini aka Edwin.

But then as a former Nazarene, I tend to understand even when I disagree with, those who come from a Wesleyan background. I still really like Wesley:D

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
You remind me of Contarini aka Edwin.
Nah…Edwin has forgotten more than what I know in regards to Christianity (but not in playing the piano).

I just like to think about things as objectively as possible and asking stupid questions. Arguing about Christianity over the internet is a bad habit of mine.

I have no problem in theory with Peter being the first “pope” as such. I mean protestant denominations have their superintendents. Since I believe the ECF writings are valid historic documents, I see a compelling case in the writings of Clement as apostolic succession being a historic fact.

My issues with the papacy are further down the food chain. These involve the the distinction between “incapable of being wrong” versus “getting it right”. A secondary issue is what the impact of the church drifting away from being what God wants it to be impacts its ability to “get it right”. A third issue (maybe related to this second) is that the distinction between infallability and impeccability as made by Catholicism really seems arbitrary and inconsistent.
 
Nah…Edwin has forgotten more than what I know in regards to Christianity (but not in playing the piano).
I hear ya there. I love it when Edwin explains Catholic, Baptist or any other denomination better than a person who is part of that denomination
I just like to think about things as objectively as possible and asking stupid questions. Arguing about Christianity over the internet is a bad habit of mine.
Nah, good questions. But then what do I know since I suffer from the same bad habit:p
I have no problem in theory with Peter being the first “pope” as such. I mean protestant denominations have their superintendents. Since I believe the ECF writings are valid historic documents, I see a compelling case in the writings of Clement as apostolic succession being a historic fact.

My issues with the papacy are further down the food chain. These involve the the distinction between “incapable of being wrong” versus “getting it right”. A secondary issue is what the impact of the church drifting away from being what God wants it to be impacts its ability to “get it right”. A third issue (maybe related to this second) is that the distinction between infallability and impeccability as made by Catholicism really seems arbitrary and inconsistent
I see your point about incapable of being wrong versus getting it right and I think however, your issue of infallibility and impeccability is probably very close to your “first issue”. I’ll bet once/if you can stop seeing it as arbitrary and inconsistent, much of your questions will be answered pertaining to “getting it right”.

I assume you have read this, Papal Infallibility, from CA Library?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
Its interesting that the city of Capernaum, no longer extant, has the Hebrew word ‘Rock’ in its name … Kepher is stone, ie Kapher-Nahum, means literally Rock of Nahum.

I wonder if Jesus, with his Hebraic penchant for word-plays, was making a bit of a pun?

Also, considering that Peter, even tho he was the foremost disciple, was anything but a rock, could Jesus have been teasing him? Sort of like calling a tall guy ‘Shorty’ or a fat dude 'Slim"?
 
Sic! I, your avg. Christian, know that Ancient Romans (Pontius Pilate was a Roman) spoke Latin. I learned that in my Latin Class at the PUBLIC High School.

Vale,
SAHM02

NB: Sic is Latin for yes
NB: Vale is Latin for bye

And NB is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase: Nota bene, which means Note Well

Okay, this mini-Latin lesson if over…
I also believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic to Peter.

Just because Jesus could speak multiple languages does NOT mean that Peter could BEFORE Pentecost.
Jesus telling Peter he is the “rock” happened BEFORE Pentecost. Which, in my opinion, means that more and likely it was spoken in Peter and Jesus native tongue Aramaic.

That’s just my :twocents:
Yes, I know Pontius Pilate is Roman. I believed that when Jesus spoke to him, Jesus must have talk to Pilate in Latin since Latin is the official language of Rome.

I find it hard for Protestants to understand who the Rock is in Matthew 16.

Where do you think the name Peter came from? It comes from the Greek word Petros (musculine). In Aramaic, Rock means Cephas, or Kepha.

It is only in Matthew 16 that Peter is the Rock. All the other verses refering to Jesus is Rock is write. In the writings of Paul where he says, “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Cor Chapter 10-4.

Matthew 16 is the only Passage in the Gospel that Simon Son of Bar Jona is renamed by Jesus as Peter, or Cephas, or Kepha.

God often change name of individual. We have Abram to Abraham, etc. Likewise, Jesus rename Simon to Peter. Jesus specifically said, “YOU (Simon) are Kepha; and upon this Kepha I will build My Church.”

I find it almost ignorant for Protestants to say that the Rock in Matthew is not Peter. If it isn’t, Simon can’t be called Peter. Peter comes from the Greek Word Petros.

That is Christian Logic.

The Protestant (those Pros who think Peter isn’t the Rock in Matthew) interpretation of Matthew 16 is illogical.

It’s like they are ignoring the full context of that passage.

If the Protestants think that Peter is not the Rock in Matthew 16, when Jesus should not name Simon to Peter. This is how I see the Protestant misinterpretation, "Simon Son of Bar Jona, you are Simon, and upon Me (Rock) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Well, the Bible doesn’t say it like that. It said, “Simon, Son of Bar Jona, you are Kepha and Upon this Kepha I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

So tell me which is more logical? The Catholic interpretation or the Protestants?

Kepha is the Aramaic word for Rock. The Gospel of Matthew is originally written in Aramaic, which was later translated into Greek and then Latin.

The word Rock in the Bible does not always mean Jesus. Even God called Abraham rock. "1: “Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged…” (Isaiah 51:1-2).
 
I find it almost ignorant for Protestants to say that the Rock in Matthew is not Peter. If it isn’t, Simon can’t be called Peter. Peter comes from the Greek Word Petros.

That is Christian Logic.

The Protestant (those Pros who think Peter isn’t the Rock in Matthew) interpretation of Matthew 16 is illogical.
What you have said is mostly correct. Petros is not a Greek word Petra is. It is difficult for those not familiar with languages that have feminine and masculine ending to understand the usage. Petra is a feminine noun word for rock. The a on the end denotes this. However, because Peter is male they made the ending male hence the os but it did not change the meaning of the word which is only rock.

[ Greek dictionary"]ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary]Greek dictionary]("ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary)
 
What you have said is mostly correct. Petros is not a Greek word Petra is. It is difficult for those not familiar with languages that have feminine and masculine ending to understand the usage. Petra is a feminine noun word for rock. The a on the end denotes this. However, because Peter is male they made the ending male hence the os but it did not change the meaning of the word which is only rock.

[ Greek dictionary"]ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary]Greek dictionary]("ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary)
I stand corrected.
 
Jimmy Akin gives further explanation pertaining to Matthew 16.

My question pertains to when Jesus institutes Peter as Pope.

The passage in particular is the one where Jesus states: You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church.

I have some non-catholic family members telling about an interpretation of this passage which is condratictory to what Catholics believe it means (surprise surprise!).

They are saying that the greek word for rock in refrence to Peter could actually mean pebble or even that it is a feminine version of the noun.

I have also heard two other interpretations about this passage.
  1. Jesus meant that he would build his church upon people who proclaim Jesus as Lord (like peter did), and he didn’t mean that he was going to build his Church upon Peter himself.
  2. Jesus meant that he was going to build his church upon a physical rock.
The people who told me about this interpretation said they watched a biblical archeological movie that showed the actual physical rock which Jesus was talking about.

Could you please shed some light on this passage for me?

In particular, an explanation of the greek that is used in this passage.

Thanks a bunch for your time God Bless
The following is excerpted from the article “Peter the Rock” by Jimmy Akin “One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the “rock” that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19.

I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it.

Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church.

That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah.

In the passage, I thought, the “small stone” Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the “large rock” (petra) of Jesus.

What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base.

There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus.

In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf.

D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic.

(Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine;

Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra.

In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get “Cephas”)—would have been used.

Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said.

Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—“You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”—should be decisive for our interpretation.

Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements.

The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter.

Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well.

Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement.

It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock.

Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration.

(The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed.

The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing.

The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom.

That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.” No two ways about it.

Peter is the rock.” Full text is here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top