MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[tqualey]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

The point is that words really do change over time. One major way to find out what is going on is to see how the word is used used adn how the context is different.

While you have labored long over this LaZBoy analogy - perhaps just responding to my challenge would greatly clarify matters.

Are you saying that Christ could NOT build His Church - the Catholic Church - on a ‘small stone’ ?

If this is not the case, are you saying that Christ COULD build His Church on a ‘small stone’?

If God can chose to act as He will with whom He will - why do you torture this poor word with a torent of verbage? Please note, Christ was not speaking to Luther.

Peter was not only called a Rock (the only real discussion here is the size of that Rock), given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and lose. Combine this with the fact that God the Father selected Peter - and this choice was confirmed by Christ - are most curious.

God bless

The difference between classical Greek and Koine Greek is something like the difference between Shakespeare and modern English. Grammar got a lot simpler. Some words of course changed meaning over 300-400 years. Others didn’t change at all. New words came in, old words went out.

To know whether a given word changed meaning or not, you need to find where writers use it, compare those uses of the word, and see whether or not the meaning has changed.

My conclusion at this point is that the meanings of petros and petra didn’t change between Classical and Koine Greek. I’ve asked for references that might indicate that’s wrong.

Let’s say there’s also a Spanish word, el Sillo. It means “an outdoors chair” – a lawn chair, or a camp stool. “La Silla” means “an indoors chair,” – kitchen chair, LaZBoy, etc.

1000 years later, people read that you named your son Sillo, after the chair your wife was sitting in when you proposed to her. A scholar is trying to decide whether you proposed to your wife in a restaurant, or in the front yard of her parents’ house. Which word should they think your son’s name comes from? Is his name (El) Sillo, or is it (La) Silla with a masculine ending attached? My answer is, the people who say it happened in the restaurant have a tough hill to climb. The simple, obvious explanation for naming him Sillo is that he was named after an outside chair.

That’s my point. “Petros” was already its own word, and had been for centuries. It’s not just the result of linguistic surgery on “petra.”

Kind of. Peter is a stone or piece of rock, maybe like in English we say a “chip off the old block.” Petra IS the block. There’s really not much overlap between the two, like there is in English between “rock” and “stone.”

AIL

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

Are you saying that Christ could NOT build His Church - the Catholic Church - on a ‘small stone’ ?
If this is not the case, are you saying that Christ COULD build His Church on a ‘small stone’?
If God can chose to act as He will with whom He will - why do you torture this poor word with a torent of verbage?

God can do, and does do, “whatever pleases him.” But the question isn’t what God could do. The question is what he DID do.

As for verbiage, I think I’ve been spoken to more than I’ve spoken?

Please note, Christ was not speaking to Luther.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

You may be surprised to learn that if you keep on off-handedly dismissing those who wish to engage you in dialogue, you will be left talking to yourself about an ever increasing arcane topic. Please, do not be so dismissive of others. You will find that as they systematically point out the errors in your logic, you may just see that there are other points of view.

Oh, I did get a chuckle out of the Mandarin analogy. I think the real take home message is that Divinely Inspired Word of God is without error. Again, if your efforts to discredit God the Father’s choice - confirmed by Christ - you are really going to find your arguments twisting in the wind.

God bless

Please read more carefully. I never claimed Jesus said this in Greek. I said it’s possible. I believe I even said it was unlikely.

We disagree on first principles, and there’s little point to continuing to interact about this. You simply keep repeating your assertion that the proper method is to try to reconstruct an Aramaic text we don’t have. I keep insisting that we focus on the Greek text we do have. Clearly we’re not going to agree. Do the two of us have anything else to discuss?

As for the nonsensical sarcasm about Mandarin Chinese, I think it simply proves there’s little point to the two of us discussing this any further.

AIL

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

Good to hear from you! Now, let’s see what we have …

God can do, and does do, “whatever pleases him.” But the question isn’t what God could do. The question is what he DID do.

This is what I have previously described as evasion, AnIrishLutheran. The question put to you requires a choice so that one can see just where it is you stand. It would appear that you are trying to divert the question I put to you.

But, I will be delighted to respond to YOUR question as to just what did God DO.

1.) God the Father selected Peter from out of the Twelve - and gave Peter the correct answer!

2.) Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, called Peter the Rock (your apparent concern seems to stem from just what size this Rock is… But a Rock nonetheless!)

3.) Jesus Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven

4.) Jesus Christ gave Peter the power to bind and lose on Heaven and Earth.

These items are quite concrete as to action. Since we are only looking at Matthew 16, I won’t bother you with 1,600 years of history where the Bishop of Rome has been traced from Peter to Benedict XVI.

As for verbiage, I think I’ve been spoken to more than I’ve spoken?

OK. if you think so.

Are you saying that Christ could NOT have reformed his church through Luther? Not at all! Actually, AnIrishLutheran, I direct your attention to St. Catherine of Siena - who acted as a true reformer to a Church truly in need of reform. And, she lived 200 years before Luther - so, he did have an actual example to learn from.

If this is not the case, are you saying that Christ COULD have reformed his church through Luther?

If Christ could use a sinful, loud-mouthed fisherman to be the foundation for His Church… he could have certainly used Luther. The issue isn’t COULD Christ have used Luther - but, COULD Luther have demonstrated the qualities of character necessary to present a case for reform in the face of the indifference that had been demonstrated by St. Catherine of Siena. Actually, today he could be known as St. Martin Luther!

You see, one must want to actually participate in reform - rather than revolt.

God bless

AIL

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Faithfully,

Great post!

I, too, am interested in the answer to your question about why there is concern.

God bless

Oh, regarding whether calling someone a pebble is an insult… Sure, we have a pebble in our shoe, It’s an irratant. But a person that we can count on, is a ROCK… Tiny and annoying, or something solid… Regardless, no building or institution would be built with a pile of pebbles…

Now then, ultimately, what is the purpose of determining whether or not peter is A rock or THE rock? Or a pebble…

It seems to me the reason is to finally say, and so Peter is NOT the designated person to build the Church of Christ?

True or False?

So, If he IS the designated person, then what does this exact translation matter? Unless of course we’re sitting in a courtroom determining whether or not someone is going to jail depending on EXACTLY what was said, and in which language.

But if he’s NOT the designated person… then perhaps that’s why some care,??? If Peter is not who is to build the Church of Christ… then we can safely go on to whatever church suits our personal needs/opinions better? 'Cause then it’s just not really clear WHO we should follow as there are no other directions anyplace else… So I guess we just sit around and wait for someone’s personal revelation to tell us? Which makes total sense. That we just believe some convincing individual, and not a man who came with a purpose. Christ just came to die for our sins. Right? Not to tell us a single dang thing while he was here. Heck I’m not sure why he wasn’t just a still birth (or rather moments afterwards) That would have sufficed being born and dieing… Why go through ALL that he did? Surely he would just leave the earth and not give us a single clue. I mean WHY BOTHER??? Watching this sort of thing must be fantastically entertaining.

So for 2 seconds. Let’s say he’s (Peter) NOT the designated person to build this church? And if nothing else Run the Church. We know that Christ is about to die… so he can’t run it. Who is to run the church??? And carry on THE word as taught be Christ?

Does it not make any sense that it would be a Disciple? Who else would it be? I can’t think of anything taught and brought forward to a younger crowd, done officially by someone who was NOT right there? There is nothing else in the world that would be handled this way.

And so another question is. Did any of the other disciples run off and create their own Church? Is the Baptist church really the church started and run and handed off by John? Did they go and start something other than one Holy Apostolic Church? Or where they all standing behind Peter, perhaps even offended as he seemed less worthy in their eyes and do as they understood?

I’m confused by the purpose of this conversation. (not this thread… but the fact the conversation goes on and on and on)

I realize I’m a weeeeee OT… but help me out here. Why the concern?

 

[elvisman]

Please read more carefully. I never claimed Jesus said this in Greek. I said it’s possible. I believe I even said it was unlikely.

We disagree on first principles, and there’s little point to continuing to interact about this. You simply keep repeating your assertion that the proper method is to try to reconstruct an Aramaic text we don’t have. I keep insisting that we focus on the Greek text we do have. Clearly we’re not going to agree. Do the two of us have anything else to discuss?

As for the nonsensical sarcasm about Mandarin Chinese, I think it simply proves there’s little point to the two of us discussing this any further.

AIL

**Actually - I’m not surprised at all. In my 6 years on this forum, this is the typical response of a person who, when backed into a corner, runs instead of providing logical responses.

You are more than willing to take the word of a linguistic scholar some 2000 years after this incident in Matt. 16, yet the testimony of an early Church father - who probably saw a copy of the original text in Aramaic isn’t good enough because he’s dead. This is some pretty convoluted logic on your part. **

The testimony of Irenaeus, who was a student of Ignatius of Antioch - who was a student of John the Apostle and is reported to have known Jesus himself and ALL of the Apostles is much stronger than any scholar alive today. Why? Because he was one generation away from people who actually knew the authors of Scripture and probably held a copy of the Aramaic in his hands.

**The ECFs didn’****t sit around writing lies all day long, regardless of what you think. They lived for the truth of the Gospel - and many of them payed the ultimate price for it. Your attitude that since there is no hard evidence but only the testimonies of a few people from back then is precisely why the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t work either because it disregards evidence of any kind - even other Scripture verses.

According to your logic, we really cannot believe that the Revolutionary War actually took place because nobody is alive to tell the story. You can’t give me one single shred of evidence that this war took place except for the historical accounts - and that’s precisely what Eusebius gave us.

This thread was doomed from the start because of you refusal to accept any evidence except for a manuscript that doesn’t exist anymore.

PS - I wasn’t being sarcastic about Mandarin Chinese. I was making a point which you obviously missed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elvisman,

Notwithstanding a flaming ad hominum attack … combined with a general condemnation of poor to non-existant logic… and topped with an derogatory comment about Sola Scriptura …I’d say this was an excellent post!

Chances are sensibilities will never be the same … but, I am sure we will be treated to another evasion.

God bless

**Actually - I’m not **surprised at all. In my 6 years on this forum, this is the typical response of a person who, when backed into a corner, *runs *instead of providing logical responses.

You are more than willing to take the word of a linguistic scholar some 2000 years after this incident in Matt. 16, yet the testimony of an early Church father - who probably saw a copy of the original text in Aramaic* isn’t* good enough because he’s dead. This is some pretty convoluted logic on your part.

The testimony of Irenaeus, who was a student of Ignatius of Antioch - who was a student of John the Apostle and is reported to have known Jesus himself and ALL of the Apostles is much stronger than any scholar alive today. Why? Because he was one generation away from people who actually knew the authors of Scripture and probably held a copy of the Aramaic in his hands.

**The ECFs didn’**t sit around writing lies all day long, regardless of what you think. They lived for the truth of the Gospel - and many of them payed the ultimate price for it. *Your *attitude that since there is no hard evidence but only the testimonies of a few people from back then is precisely why the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t work either because it disregards evidence of any kind - even other Scripture verses.

**According to your **logic, we really cannot believe that the Revolutionary War actually took place because nobody is alive to tell the story. You can’t give me one single shred of evidence that this war took place except for the historical accounts - and that’s precisely what Eusebius gave us.

This thread was doomed from the start because of you refusal to accept any evidence except for a manuscript that doesn’t exist anymore.

PS - I wasn’t being sarcastic about Mandarin Chinese. I was making a point which you obviously missed.

 

[benedictus2]

First things first.

I am intrigued as to why you did not reply to my posts 12, 13 and 14first.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7366405&postcount=12

The crucial issue is not whether this word means stone or this word means rock in Greek. If Jesus spoke Aramaic, since there is no ambiguity in the term Kepha, then the matter is settled. No need to discuss this petros/petra non-issue.

So it would be good if you could address the points I raised

Now to your post

You forgot #0. “Peter said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’”
Jesus then says,

1. “The Father in heaven himself revealed this to you.”
2. “You are Petros.” (Why would that be an insult??? I don’t think it’s an insult.)
3. “On this rock I will build my church.”

I contend that “this rock” uses a different but related noun, with the demonstrative adjective, to refer back to what Peter said, not to anything Jesus said.

Well then you contention is wrong.
Let’s look at the full text:
16 ** Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 ** Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon barJonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 ** And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 1 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19 ** 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."

The “this” in Verse 17, does refer to the truth that Peter confessed. That is as clear as day.

If Jesus had followed that straight away with “And** this** is **the **rock that I will build my Church upon”, then it would be clear as day as well that the rock is the truth that Peter confessed.

But that is not quite what happened.

Verse 18 follows with Christ saying (according to you) “And so I say to you,.you are a little stone and upon this rock I will build my church”.
**Question : **What is the point of saying that Simon is a little stone? What has that got to do with the entire discourse? I asked that before but you never answered that.

For Christ to have said you are a stone (**without any elucidation as to what a stone has got to do with his profession or the awarding of the keys **later portrays a God who cannot seem to make a coherent sentence.

And then He says **AND **upon this rock.

What do you make of a statement that goes “I say to you, you are a stone AND upon this rock?” Does that sound like a sensible sentence to you?

**When He started speaking He never referred to Peter’s confession as a rock. ** For Him to refer to “this” rock then there must have been (there needs to be ) a mention of another rock prior, Or he is standing near a rock and is pointing to it.

So sorry no matter how much language gymnastics you do, this rock does not refer to Peter’s confession.

“You” in the passage always means Peter. “This rock” fits quite nicely with Jesus’ reference to “this,” i.e., this truth/statement/confession Peter had just spoken.

No. It does not fit nicely in anyway at all as I have shown above.

Why do you think that’s an insult? Who says it’s an insult? I don’t think it’s an insult.

Okay, let us say it is not an insult. Answer this, how does saying Simon is a stone fit into the entire discourse?

If what He really wanted was just to say that Peters confession is rock He would have done away with the “I say to you, you are stone”. For it all to make sense what He should have said is " Your confession is a rock and upon this rock I will build my Church. That, makes sense.

Can’t you see that it makes Jesus sound like an idiot when you substitute stone where rock nicely fits grammatically and syntactically?

As another poster has noted already, the Greek sentence is a pun, a play on words. A pun, of course, uses words that sound similar or the same in an unusual or unexpected way, playing with their outward similarity. It’s not possible to duplicate the pun in Aramaic/Hebrew (or in English for that matter), but it’s certainly there.

And what makes the other poster an authority on whether Jesus was making a pun or not? Is he a renowned Biblical scholar?

But supposing Jesus was employing “pun”, how does that detract from the truth that Rock means rock and He is making Simon the Rock of His Church?

 

[benedictus2]

Why not? Why can’t “this rock” have the very same antecedent “this” does in the previous sentence? "

For the simple reason that he never referred to Simon’s confession as a rock. If Jesus had said: "* this truth that you have confessed is a rock*, and on this rock I will build my church” then that makes sense.

But notice, if He did not refer to it first as a rock, then He will have to say “**the **rock instead instead of this rock i.e. “My father revealed this to you and **this is the rock **I will build my Church”.

You are the Christ! … The Father revealed this

… on this rock." Why on earth can’t the same demonstrative adjective (“this”) refer to the same antecedent (“You are the Christ!”) in two consecutive sentences?

What rule of grammar, language or rhetoric prevents it?
Because as I have just shown above, it does not make sense. For the “this rock” to make sense, another rock should have been mentioned first.

Good discourse requires more than just correct grammar. It has to make sense.

It sounds to me like

1. Peter confesses who Jesus is,
2. Jesus blesses him for this,
3. Jesus builds his church on this, and
4. There’s a cool pun involving the name Jesus gave him, and
5. Also some other stuff.

You forgot the part where Jesus says “ I say to you, you are a stone” for no apparent reason.

No matter how you look at it, substituting stone where rock should be make Jesus look like an idiot.

 

[benedictus2]

Why can’t they both be right?

Of course they are both right.

And since they are both right, then John 1:42 confirms our contention that Jesus said “You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha”

In John 1:42 "Cephas translates to Petros. If Cephas is Rock, Petros then means Rock.

So therefore, case closed…. Petros means rock.

**And if as you say, John 1:42 came first, then Jesus wanted us to have not doubt from the very beginning as to what Petros means.
**
And that is the wonder of the Word of God, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One Gospel sheds light on the seeming ambiguity in the other.

So because Jesus didn’t say why, it didn’t happen? Was John just making stuff up?

When and where I said it did not happen and that John was making this up.

It’s not a name change. It’s an additional name. Jesus called him “Simon bar Jonah” again in John 21:15. By contrast, Abram got his name changed – after the change, he isn’t called Abram any more.

How does that detract from a name change. If anything, it confirms what happened in Ceasaria Philipi.

I will re-post in this thread the explanation of the significance of Ceasaria Philippi in the Matthew event.

But in the meantime, just look at the parallelism:

Before going to Jerusalem to His death, He promises to make Simon the Rock upon which He will build His Church. He addresses Him as Simon son of Jonah.

Now He is risen and he is about to complete that commission by entrusting to Him His sheep. He addresses Him again as Simon son of Jonah.

And here is something rather beautiful I just realized when i was analyzing the Greek text.
**
Simon barjona literrally means Simon son of the Dove. **

In another thread, I said that it seems that the Father handpicked Peter and Jesus confirmed this choice.

Someone asked: "What about the Holy Spirit, what did He have to say about it?

I just replied: Well, all the scripture mentioned was The Father and Jesus Christ.

But now I wonder, since He addressed Peter as Simon son of the Dove and ( I may be wrong about this but) He only used this name

• when He called him in John 1:42,
• when He said that he will be the rock of His Church in Matthew 16:18 and in John 21:42
• when He entrusted His Sheep to him.

And all three relates to the building of His Church.

Yes, yes, yes, Cephas is a rock, and Petros is a rock.

Finally YOU GET IT!

You do like to forget that petros is a word.

No I do not forget that **(p)**etros is a word, but **(P)**etros is a proper name.

Why? It’s not just a masculinized Petra.

The capital P- Petros is a masculinized Petra.

 

[benedictus2]

For petra: Basic meaning, rock, freq. referring to
cliffs; rock (which a cave is in);

AIL

The significance of Ceasaria Philippi

Matthew 16: 13-19*

**When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” *** ***
***Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” *** Jesus said to him in reply, "***Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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."Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

---

Caesaria Philipi is around 20 miles ( a rough two days journey up the mountains) from Galillee.

Now why does our Lord go to all that trouble just for this scene?

Caesaria Philipi which used to be called Panneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan. When Philip Herod became tetrarch of that region he gave it to Augustus Caesar for some favour so it became Ceasaria Philipi, that is, Ceasar’s city from Philip.

In this region is a humongous rock around 500ft long and 200ft high.

On top of this rock is a huge marble temple with an idol of the god Pan. Philip Herod replaced that idol of Pan with the idol of the divine Ceasar Augustus (emperors were considered divine).

To the left of the rock is a cave and in the cave is a deep hole filled with water which is the source of the Jordan river. The pagans believed this to to be the gates of sheol - the doorway to the underworld.

So now we have Jesus standing next to this rock, on top of which, is a temple to a false god (two false gods as a matter of fact) next to which is a cave that is the gate to sheol. He is now saying that He will do something different. He will build the Church of the True God on top of the true rock and that rock is Simon barJonah and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

We even see here a parallel with the sheep/shepherd motif in the commissioning of Peter in John 21. This area and temple used to be dedicated to Pan, the god of shepherds. Here we have Chist the True God giving the promise to Peter who He will later commission to shepherd His sheep.

The water in the cave is the origin of the Jordan River, where He was baptised and went with His disciples when they went baptizing. Think of Peter being the rock and the water from this Rock now watering Gods’ people. You can see in this symbolism the whole salvation theology including that of baptism as a sacrament of incorporation into Christ’s Church.

Another thing, and this is very important, neither Jesus nor the Father made any teaching about Jesus’ true identity and mission. This teaching THEY caused to be pronounced through Peter.
Christ could have gone around proclaiming He is the Son of God but He didn’t. He let that be declared through Peter.

If you notice, even His apostles had no real clue as to who Jesus was. Peter cuts through all that speculation and pronounces the TRUTH about Jesus Christ. Through the ages to this very day, his successors continue to pronounce the truth about who Jesus is and what His mission is all about.o

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnIrishLutheran,

It looks like not only did Benedictus2 burry your argument but you have conspicuous by your absence in responding! Really, now, it makes no sense to start your own thread and then evade the material coming in to it!

This issue of Petra and Petros has been addressed - and your arguments have been exposed for the smoke screen they are.

I told you that you would evade the material on the previous thread when you opened up this thread. I’m no prophet - just having watched your repeated behaviors, you have become quite predictable. At some point, it may dawn on you that such intellectual dishonesty simply can not be of God - and, friend, that is the ultimate issue. Facing the Divine Judge with the full knowledge you were deceitful on the matter of his Word is really serious. Hey, you want to break all the civil laws - that is one thing. But, your refusal to answer and defend your spurious arguments has the real potential to lead others astray.

Now, as I see it, you have been called out. There is a set of posts that take different aspects of your argument and refute it. Simply ignoring this material will not do. You wanted dialogue, well, speak up so you can be heard.

God bless

Of course they are both right.

And since they are both right, then John 1:42 confirms our contention that Jesus said “You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha”

In John 1:42 "Cephas translates to Petros. If Cephas is Rock, Petros then means Rock.

So therefore, case closed…. Petros means rock.

**And if as you say, John 1:42 came first, then Jesus wanted us to have not doubt from the very beginning as to what Petros means.
**
And that is the wonder of the Word of God, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One Gospel sheds light on the seeming ambiguity in the other.

When and where I said it did not happen and that John was making this up.

How does that detract from a name change. If anything, it confirms what happened in Ceasaria Philipi.

I will re-post in this thread the explanation of the significance of Ceasaria Philippi in the Matthew event.

But in the meantime, just look at the parallelism:

Before going to Jerusalem to His death, He promises to make Simon the Rock upon which He will build His Church. He addresses Him as Simon son of Jonah.

Now He is risen and he is about to complete that commission by entrusting to Him His sheep. He addresses Him again as Simon son of Jonah.

And here is something rather beautiful I just realized when i was analyzing the Greek text.
**
Simon barjona literrally means Simon son of the Dove. **

In another thread, I said that it seems that the Father handpicked Peter and Jesus confirmed this choice.

Someone asked: "What about the Holy Spirit, what did He have to say about it?

I just replied: Well, all the scripture mentioned was The Father and Jesus Christ.

But now I wonder, since He addressed Peter as Simon son of the Dove and ( I may be wrong about this but) He only used this name

• when He called him in John 1:42,
• when He said that he will be the rock of His Church in Matthew 16:18 and in John 21:42
• when He entrusted His Sheep to him.

And all three relates to the building of His Church.

Finally YOU GET IT!

No I do not forget that **(p)**etros is a word, but **(P)**etros is a proper name.

The capital P- Petros is a masculinized Petra.

 

[elvisman]

1. “Jesus spoke Aramaic,” and/or “Matthew was written in Aramaic, so he said kepha … kepha.”

a) One church father (Papias) said that Matthew was written in Aramaic. There is no manuscript or any other evidence for an Aramaic Matthew. Other than Papias’ one comment, there is no other evidence for an Aramaic Matthew at all.

b) Matthew wrote his Greek Gospel by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Greek statement we have accurately reflects exactly what jesus said and meant. God gave us Matthew in Greek, and intends that we understand it in Greek, not in Aramaic.

c) “Jesus spoke Aramaic.” It’s entirely likely he also spoke Greek. Even life in Rome would have been difficult for a non-Greek speaker in the 1st century, let alone in not-very-Jewish Galilee. Which one did Jesus speak that day outside of Caesarea Philippi? We do not know. The only thing we know is what Matthew wrote down for us. In Greek.

Thanks,
AIL

This whole debate boils down to whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic. The general consensus is that he, in fact, DID speak Aramaic. Other Scholars claim that he spoke Hebrew. In light of what the Early church Fathers claimed (Irenaeus, Papias) along with the consensus of 21st century linguistic scholars - your charge that Jesus probably didn’t primarily speak Aramaic is squashed by Biblical evidence to the contrary.

---

The Gospels and other books of the NT are filled with Aramaic phrases, names and statements used by Jesus and others. Here are but a few of them:

---

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34**** - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (My God my God, why have you forsaken me?)
Matt. 5:22 Raca (empty one, fool, empty head)
Mark 7:34** – Ephphatha (be opened) **
Mark 5:41** -* Talitha kum*" (Little girl, I say to you, get up.)**
Mark 14:36** Abba (Father)**
Matt. 6:24**, Luke 16:9-13* Mammon***
Matt. 26:25,49; Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; John 1:49, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8 - Rabboni
Mark 3:17 Boanerges (Sons of Thunder)
John 11:16, 20:24 and 21:2** – Thomas (comes from the Aramaic tômâ, which means "twin” – also “Didymus”).**

---

Matt. 26:36, Mark 14:32 - Gethsemane**
Mark 15:22, John 19:17*** - Golgotha***
John 19:13*** - Gabbatha***
Acts 1:19*** - Akeldama***

Because of how it is rendered in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - many scholars also believe that the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic was composed in Aramaic.

These passages and references - along with countless others - conclude that Aramaic was the primary language spoken by Jesus and others in Galilee during the first century. From this, we can therefore conclude that Jesus indeed referred to Simon as Kepha - and NOT Petros.**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elvisman,

I think these are excellent examples that prove the point!

God bless

This whole debate boils down to whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic. The general consensus is that he, in fact, DID speak Aramaic. Other Scholars claim that he spoke Hebrew. In light of what the Early church Fathers claimed (Irenaeus, Papias) along with the consensus of 21st century linguistic scholars - your charge that Jesus probably didn’t primarily speak Aramaic is squashed by Biblical evidence to the contrary.

---

The Gospels and other books of the NT are filled with Aramaic phrases, names and statements used by Jesus and others. Here are but a few of them:

---

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34**** - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (My God my God, why have you forsaken me?)
Matt. 5:22 Raca (empty one, fool, empty head)
Mark 7:34** – Ephphatha** (be opened)
Mark 5:41** -* Talitha kum***" (Little girl, I say to you, get up.)
Mark 14:36** Abba** (Father)
Matt. 6:24**, Luke 16:9-13*** Mammon*
Matt. 26:25,49; Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; John 1:49, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8 - Rabboni
Mark 3:17 Boanerges (Sons of Thunder)
John 11:16, 20:24 and 21:2** – Thomas** (comes from the Aramaic tômâ, which means "twin” – also “Didymus”).

---

Matt. 26:36, Mark 14:32** - Gethsemane**
Mark 15:22, John 19:17*** - Golgotha***
John 19:13*** - Gabbatha***
Acts 1:19*** - Akeldama***

Because of how it is rendered in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - many scholars also believe that the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic was composed in Aramaic.

These passages and references - along with countless others - conclude that Aramaic was the primary language spoken by Jesus and others in Galilee during the first century. From this, we can therefore conclude that Jesus indeed referred to Simon as Kepha - and NOT Petros.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes I agree Tom, Elvisman hits on the main point here which is “original language” with excellent examples.

Christs words on the Cross alone speaks volumes.

 

[tqualey]

Hey, Gary … have you seen or heard from the OP lately?

I thought I read something about The US Surgeon General has determined that breathing in air from a smoke screen can be hazardous to ones credibility…or something like that…

God bless

Yes I agree Tom, Elvisman hits on the main point here which is “original language” with excellent examples.

Christs words on the Cross alone speaks volumes.

 

[benedictus2]

I thought I read something about The US Surgeon General has determined that breathing in air from a smoke screen can be hazardous to ones credibility…or something like that…

God bless

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3763791/2/istockphoto_3763791-musical-notes.jpg

They asked me how I knew, what I opine is true,
…
…
I of course replied , when one’s hold on truth dies, smoke gets in one’s eyes.

 

[pablope]

AnIrishLutheran:
Why can’t they both be right?

So because Jesus didn’t say why, it didn’t happen? Was John just making stuff up?

It’s not a name change. It’s an additional name. Jesus called him “Simon bar Jonah” again in John 21:15. By contrast, Abram got his name changed – after the change, he isn’t called Abram any more.

AIL

My comment:

It is certainly a name change. If it was meant only as a nickname, it would not have stuck…Simon would not be named Peter today.

Protestants also unwittingly acknowledge the name change, for they refer to him as Peter, not Simon.

In addition, Mark 16: 5-7:

5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

The angel, as “young man sitting on the right side”…mentions “Peter” by name, the only instance in all the Gospels where an apostle’s name is mentioned immediately after the resurrection and at the tomb. And the one mentioning the name of Peter is an angel. This is significant in that Heaven, God the Father, has acknowledged the name change.

**The name change has Heavenly approval, and the role Peter will play in building Christ’s church.
**

 

[MartinJordan]

My comment:

It is certainly a name change. If it was meant only as a nickname, it would not have stuck…Simon would not be named Peter today.

Protestants also unwittingly acknowledge the name change, for they refer to him as Peter, not Simon.

In addition, Mark 16: 5-7:

5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

The angel, as “young man sitting on the right side”…mentions “Peter” by name, the only instance in all the Gospels where an apostle’s name is mentioned immediately after the resurrection and at the tomb. And the one mentioning the name of Peter is an angel. This is significant in that Heaven, God the Father, has acknowledged the name change.

**The name change has Heavenly approval, and the role Peter will play in building Christ’s church.
**

Beautiful

 

[benedictus2]

This whole debate boils down to whether or not Jesus spoke Aramaic. The general consensus is that he, in fact, DID speak Aramaic. Other Scholars claim that he spoke Hebrew. In light of what the Early church Fathers claimed (Irenaeus, Papias) along with the consensus of 21st century linguistic scholars - your charge that Jesus probably didn’t primarily speak Aramaic is squashed by Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Excellent point! Since Christ spoke Aramaic then the stone/rock supposed contradiction disappears.

** The Gospels and other books of the NT are filled** with Aramaic phrases, names and statements used by Jesus and others. Here are but a few of them:

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34***- Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani*** (My God my God, why have you forsaken me?)
Matt. 5:22** Raca** (empty one, fool, empty head)
Mark 7:34** – Ephphatha** (be opened)
Mark 5:41** -* Talitha kum***" (Little girl, I say to you, get up.)
Mark 14:36** Abba** (Father)
Matt. 6:24**, Luke 16:9-13*** Mammon*
Mark 3:17** Boanerges** (Sons of Thunder)

AIL asked in a another thread how do we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I thought it a strange question for someone who seems to know the Bible.
**

Because of how it is rendered in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke - many scholars also

believe that the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic was composed in Aramaic.

These passages and references - along with countless others - conclude that Aramaic was the primary language spoken by Jesus and others in Galilee during the first century. From this, we can therefore conclude that Jesus indeed referred to Simon as Kepha - and NOT Petros.**I don’t know how anyone can rationalize away such Biblical evidence