MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Tom,

There is a reference for this in the Bible and I have enumerated this in my reply to IrishLutheran.

What strikes me as a very good argument that He spoke Aramaic is that His words on the cross, as recorded in the Bible, when He was suffering was in Aramaic : Eli Eli Lema Sabachthani.

In pain we tend to speak in our natural language.

My sister-in-law has a Filipina friend who, when she was giving birth started to say Ouch, Ouch (wanting to keep it English). But when the labour pains became intense she yelled “Araaaay” which is a Filipino cry of pain.

I find it very interesting that the Holy Spirit has guided the Gospel writers and St Paul to include these Aramaic sayings of Jesus. Perhaps in preparation for the contention that would arise 1800 years later.

I say 1800 years because I doubt that this problem with petros / petra would have been brought up during the time of the Reformation. I could be wrong but I think this is a much later invention.

Yes I thought about the Cross last evening after leaving here and Christs words, great point. As is the Apostle Paul. Much patience on your part, hats off to you.

Anyway also,

A note about the next verse after Matt 16:18 in 16:19. Here we have another famous quote “Keys of the Kingdom”. This verse completes the prophecy from Isaiah 22. In Isaiah the entire content of chapter 22 must be read and understood. In particular 22:16 and 22:22. Yet this is the Prophecy of the " ‘Keys’ of the ‘Kingdom’ " which “is” the Mystical Body if Jesus Christ, the Church and the prophecy of the church are coming to light in Matthew?

Obviously from this point we could yet expand to other related points which relate back to the “Keys of the Kingdom.” Well, who holds these “Keys”, and where is Christs “Kingdom” on earth? Without a doubt the church is this “Kingdom” on earth.

Problem with Sola Scriptura is a whole lot in individuals can never agee on anything. It leads us down a constant path of “Some of us believe”. Some believe man didn’t land on the Moon? This does little in mankinds quest for truth and survival. Man forgets very easily, don’t give Homo Sapien overdue credit. He has failed to succeed in a civilized society to date. And sola scriptura is attributing to us racing towards disaster yet once again. How could it possibly help? Its roots trace back to “individuals”. Yes individuals are important, but the bigger picture “the entire body” is yet more important.

I don’t agree with Pope Benedict on everything. But I’m not off starting a New Church because of it. Without doubt the man is a Genius in Theology, The Keys are in the right hands, God made no mistake here. Is he a man? Most definate.

We have a degree of understanding that one must “choose” to partake in. Learned behavior is not easy to overcome. The path of Truth is not always easily obtained. Alcoholics don’t believe they are slowly killing themselves. Yet the statistics are there for all to see. Born muslims are convinced their faith is absolute and can’t see the christian heresy? Keep your mind open, Pray constantly, the Lord and Our Lady will lead you to Truth.

God Bless, GT

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GaryTaylor,

Sorry about my uninformed correction… Ah, but the good news is that I am back on the right path!

For me, the problem with denying Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church - is that Sola Scriptura allows Biblically illetrate people to totally misunderstand what is plainly written, and amongst the devious and those who forced to justify their unjustifiable position it is a tool for entrapping others.

Ultimately, those who walked away from The Rock - knowing full well what was involved (Luther was very calculating here and poorly channeled his anger into self-righteousness) had to create a principle allowing them to do so. How much easier it is to deny the Primacy of Peter and create a new model that enthones almost everyone’s ability to rebel. (Luther did manage to draw the line at the Anabaptists. Maybe this group rubbed him the wrong way because he saw that what he had unleasched he could no longer control.)

God bless

Yes I thought about the Cross last evening after leaving here and Christs words, great point. As is the Apostle Paul. Much patience on your part, hats off to you.

Anyway also,

A note about the next verse after Matt 16:18 in 16:19. Here we have another famous quote “Keys of the Kingdom”. This verse completes the prophecy from Isaiah 22. In Isaiah the entire content of chapter 22 must be read and understood. In particular 22:16 and 22:22. Yet this is the Prophecy of the " ‘Keys’ of the ‘Kingdom’ " which “is” the Mystical Body if Jesus Christ, the Church and the prophecy of the church are coming to light in Matthew?

Obviously from this point we could yet expand to other related points which relate back to the “Keys of the Kingdom.” Well, who holds these “Keys”, and where is Christs “Kingdom” on earth? Without a doubt the church is this “Kingdom” on earth.

Problem with Sola Scriptura is a whole lot in individuals can never agee on anything. It leads us down a constant path of “Some of us believe”. Some believe man didn’t land on the Moon? This does little in mankinds quest for truth and survival. Man forgets very easily, don’t give Homo Sapien overdue credit. He has failed to succeed in a civilized society to date. And sola scriptura is attributing to us racing towards disaster yet once again. How could it possibly help? Its roots trace back to “individuals”. Yes individuals are important, but the bigger picture “the entire body” is yet more important.

I don’t agree with Pope Benedict on everything. But I’m not off starting a New Church because of it. Without doubt the man is a Genius in Theology, The Keys are in the right hands, God made no mistake here. Is he a man? Most definate.

We have a degree of understanding that one must “choose” to partake in. Learned behavior is not easy to overcome. The path of Truth is not always easily obtained. Alcoholics don’t believe they are slowly killing themselves. Yet the statistics are there for all to see. Born muslims are convinced their faith is absolute and can’t see the christian heresy? Keep your mind open, Pray constantly, the Lord and Our Lady will lead you to Truth.

God Bless, GT

 

[beth40n2]

Oh for goodness sake, I was about to log off so I can go to sleep, now you are keeping me awake.

Please extend your reading far beyond whatever manufactured lie you are basing this exegesis on.

This has been debunked 100 times over here at CAF.

A summation:
The petros/petra controversy is non existent.
When Jesus spoke - He spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha.
This is how it would have gone. “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Chuch” Straight English translation : “Simon Bar Jonah, You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”.

We know this for a fact because Paul called Peter Cephas and Jesus did too in John 1.

The reason for calling Simon, Peter, is because in Greek, objects have gender. To call Simon- a burly fisherman - by the femine name Petra would have been absurd. So when they translated it to Greek they gave him the male equivalent which is Peter.

No you’re knowledge is the joke.

I didn’t check your membership but I think you must be new. Stick around check the threads. Most likely whatever argument you are putting forward has already been debunked many times before.

And what is it with this tendency of evangelicals to negate the Gospel by quoting Paul?

I agree, when you quote someone you have to translate the language in which they spoke, not another language.

 

[workingman]

You cannot surely say that Peter was the rock on which Jesus intended to build His church??? In Matthew 16:18, the Greek word Christ uses is ‘petra’ and means ‘small rock or pebble’. ‘Petros’, however, means ‘Peter’ and Jesus is using a play on the similarity in sounds of these two words to illustrate how unsuitable Peter would be as a basis for His Church. It is a JOKE that Christ was making, in my opinion ( and Derek Prince’s, too - see his book Foundational Truths, pages 3-5) - for how do you build a church of almighty God on a pebble?
Also - Peter was called ‘Satan’ by Jesus in Matthew 16:22-23, Peter famously denies Jesus three times a little later on in the Gospels and, even after Pentecost, Peter was reprimanded by Paul for compromising concerning the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).
So please ask the Holy Spirit to tell you - was Peter ever really supposed to be the rock on which the Church was built? In my opinion (and Derek Prince’s and anyone who reads the New Testament - especially, if possible, in its original Greek) he was used by Christ as a way of showing how very irresponsible a person he was (though a born leader) - and how unsuitable, therefore, he was as a basis for the Church.

Let us remember Paul’s words regarding foundations, inspired by the Holy Spirit: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ’ (1 Corinthians 3:11)

I’m sure this has been address quite well but I thought I would put in my :twocents:

Yes, Peter is absolutely the Rock on which the Church is built. It is very plainly stated in Matt. 16:18. Peter was given this name by Christ in John 1:42. This is also a direct parallel of Matt. 7:24-25. Also in Matt. 16:19 it was Peter and Peter alone who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Hence the ability to bind and loose sins. In Matt 17:24-25 the tax collector approached Peter to collect the taxes of Jesus and Peter acted as the spokesman/the vicar of Christ. In Matt. 19:27 it was Peter who spoke on behalf of all that they left everything to follow Jesus. In 1Cor. 15;4-8 Paul himself distinguishes Christ resurrection first to Cephas then to the other 11. These are but a few examples of Peter being the Rock of the Church that Christ built upon him.

 

[adrift]

I’m sure this has been address quite well but I thought I would put in my :twocents:

Yes, Peter is absolutely the Rock on which the Church is built. It is very plainly stated in Matt. 16:18. Peter was given this name by Christ in John 1:42. This is also a direct parallel of Matt. 7:24-25. Also in Matt. 16:19 it was Peter and Peter alone who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Hence the ability to bind and loose sins. In Matt 17:24-25 the tax collector approached Peter to collect the taxes of Jesus and Peter acted as the spokesman/the vicar of Christ. In Matt. 19:27 it was Peter who spoke on behalf of all that they left everything to follow Jesus. In 1Cor. 15;4-8 Paul himself distinguishes Christ resurrection first to Cephas then to the other 11. These are but a few examples of Peter being the Rock of the Church that Christ built upon him.

The OP ignores the point that it was a name change. A name change was always significant. Also ignored is the given of the Keys which is the authority to rule the Church. Not only does Jesus say that He builds His Church on Peter but proceeds to give Peter authority.
As for the OP’s translation of Peter, it is disputed in the following.

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Adrift,

Great post!

God bless

The OP ignores the point that it was a name change. A name change was always significant. Also ignored is the given of the Keys which is the authority to rule the Church. Not only does Jesus say that He builds His Church on Peter but proceeds to give Peter authority.
As for the OP’s translation of Peter, it is disputed in the following.

 

[workingman]

The OP ignores the point that it was a name change. A name change was always significant. Also ignored is the given of the Keys which is the authority to rule the Church. Not only does Jesus say that He builds His Church on Peter but proceeds to give Peter authority.
As for the OP’s translation of Peter, it is disputed in the following.

Interesting that the OP does not want to recognize the significance of a name change.

As for this below

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra
simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

When did the Greek language drop the gender relation of words. The little I studied Koine Greek there was still gender male, feminine, and nuter in words. Though I be it far from a expert and fluent. What about the Arimaic (sp) wording of Kepha for Peter? Since that is the language Christ normally spoke.

Well I guess there might be no proof good enough for the OP. Though it is plainly spelled out in Scripture.

 

[pablope]

Thank you for that Pablo. But I think we are all doing an outstanding job. But really it is easy. It is easy to tell the truth, but manufacturing lies is difficult.

There is a wonderful member here who is a convert and he said that since converting, apologetics has become way too easy. The Church speaks for herself.

Oh, and I am she.

You are most welcome, Benedictus2…, yes, I realized you are a she…my fault.

And yes, when you have the truth, the explanations or answers are so simple, no twisting of words or circular arguments to sow confusion in an attempt to refute.

pablo

 

[pablope]

Thanks. There is actually still much that one could say as to why evangelicalism and protestantism in general fits verse 23 but two I felt would suffice.

Since we are talking about Peter and his successors, I strongly recommend reading “Light of the World” - Peter Seewald’s interview with Pope Benedict.

Our awesome Pope is simply brilliant! Praise and Thanks to God for giving us Pope Benedict to shepherd us in His stead.

I will try to get his book. You know, I believe our Popes are pre-ordained, or there is definitely a divine hand working in the selection of Peter’s successor. We were watching Padre Pio’s biography movie, and in one scene, during his questioning/interrogation, to prove the truth of his Stigmata, he recounted a young priest who visited him, and told his interrogator that that young priest would be a pope, as proof of truth. I believe that young priest was who would eventually be JPII.

 

[pablope]

The OP ignores the point that it was a name change. A name change was always significant. Also ignored is the given of the Keys which is the authority to rule the Church. Not only does Jesus say that He builds His Church on Peter but proceeds to give Peter authority.
As for the OP’s translation of Peter, it is disputed in the following.

Hi, Adrift…i was kind of holding back on the significance of the name change for the right moment…but since you mentioned…yes I agree, in the protestent zeal to denigrate Peter, they miss the significance of the name change.

When a name was changed in those times, it meant a change in status, someone is being given authority. Examples:

Abram to Abraham…when the name changed to Abraham, God commanded Abraham to build nations.

Jacob to Israel…when changed to Israel, God commanded Israel to build the nation of Israel.

And when Jesus changed the name of Simon to Cephas/Peter, Jesus commanded Peter to be the foundation and build His church.

Unwittingly for our protestant brethen, they quietly acquisce with this authority given to Peter for they do not refer to him as Simon, but the new name given by Jesus…PETER.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I will try to get his book. You know, I believe our Popes are pre-ordained, or there is definitely a divine hand working in the selection of Peter’s successor. We were watching Padre Pio’s biography movie, and in one scene, during his questioning/interrogation, to prove the truth of his Stigmata, he recounted a young priest who visited him, and told his interrogator that that young priest would be a pope, as proof of truth. I believe that young priest was who would eventually be JPII.

Pope Benedict is inspiring to say the least.

Back in the early 80’s John Paul II was so impressed with Benedicts thinking in theology he immediately made him Bishop and then transferred him to Rome. Together the two would meet every Friday with leading Theologians world wide to debate and talk. Without a doubt the man is a leader in the field. At that time in Rome Benedict was in charge of the CDF, which alone is impressive.

Did the Padre Pio biography go into the Miracle he performed for John Paul II? Late 50’s John Paul wrote Pio a letter explaining how a close friend of his had terminal cancer and asked him to Pray for her. Two days later she was completely healed.

Padre Pio without a doubt is/was touched by God. Fact that he’s not here any more only advanced his state of Grace.

 

[adrift]

Interesting that the OP does not want to recognize the significance of a name change.

As for this below

When did the Greek language drop the gender relation of words. The little I studied Koine Greek there was still gender male, feminine, and nuter in words. Though I be it far from a expert and fluent. What about the Arimaic (sp) wording of Kepha for Peter? Since that is the language Christ normally spoke.

Well I guess there might be no proof good enough for the OP. Though it is plainly spelled out in Scripture.

I didn’t realize that the LINK didn’t work. I don’t believe that the gender relation was dropped. I am not sure why you think so.

 

[adrift]

Hi, Adrift…i was kind of holding back on the significance of the name change for the right moment…but since you mentioned…yes I agree, in the protestent zeal to denigrate Peter, they miss the significance of the name change.

When a name was changed in those times, it meant a change in status, someone is being given authority. Examples:

Abram to Abraham…when the name changed to Abraham, God commanded Abraham to build nations.

Jacob to Israel…when changed to Israel, God commanded Israel to build the nation of Israel.

And when Jesus changed the name of Simon to Cephas/Peter, Jesus commanded Peter to be the foundation and build His church.

Unwittingly for our protestant brethen, they quietly acquisce with this authority given to Peter for they do not refer to him as Simon, but the new name given by Jesus…PETER.

Sorry to have stepped on your point. I have seen many of these thread and this point is always ignored.

 

[pablope]

Pope Benedict is inspiring to say the least.

Did the Padre Pio biography go into the Miracle he performed for John Paul II? Late 50’s John Paul wrote Pio a letter explaining how a close friend of his had terminal cancer and asked him to Pray for her. Two days later she was completely healed.

Padre Pio without a doubt is/was touched by God. Fact that he’s not here any more only advanced his state of Grace.

HI, Gary…I do not recall this instance in the movie, sorry. What I recalled vividly was the account of the young priest who visited him who he predicted would be, not just a pope, but a good pope.

 

[pablope]

Sorry to have stepped on your point. I have seen many of these thread and this point is always ignored.

No offense taken, adrift…when you mentioned it, i took it as the right time to bring it up, so that lurkers would see and hopefully, take it to heart. Who knows, the OP may be lurking and is not making his presence known.

 

[benedictus2]

I will try to get his book. You know, I believe our Popes are pre-ordained, or there is definitely a divine hand working in the selection of Peter’s successor. We were watching Padre Pio’s biography movie, and in one scene, during his questioning/interrogation, to prove the truth of his Stigmata, he recounted a young priest who visited him, and told his interrogator that that young priest would be a pope, as proof of truth. I believe that young priest was who would eventually be JPII.

Yes, I have that movie too and it is John Paul II but back then he was only a priest.

I love Pope Benedict. I have some of his works and he is indeed a towering intellect.

Peter Seewald was an atheist when he first interviewed the Pope (he was then still the prefect of CDF). By the time he finished the interview, he became a Catholic.

 

[benedictus2]

Unwittingly for our protestant brethen, they quietly acquisce with this authority given to Peter for they do not refer to him as Simon, but the new name given by Jesus…PETER.

Very good point.

And the fact that they accept the Bible.

 

[benedictus2]

i wish you were a he…youd make an awesome priest!!! you almost have me thinking women in the priesthood…aw, never mind! lol! just glad to have you on our side. you are indispensable. wait, i got it :newidea: we could clone you! lol! but i dont think the fundamentalist could handle more than one.

I am so against women priests. Our Spiritual Director is for it and we always end up in an argument over it.

This is all feminism gone mad.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes I thought about the Cross last evening after leaving here and Christs words, great point. As is the Apostle Paul. Much patience on your part, hats off to you.

Anyway also,

A note about the next verse after Matt 16:18 in 16:19. Here we have another famous quote “Keys of the Kingdom”. This verse completes the prophecy from Isaiah 22. In Isaiah the entire content of chapter 22 must be read and understood. In particular 22:16 and 22:22. Yet this is the Prophecy of the " ‘Keys’ of the ‘Kingdom’ " which “is” the Mystical Body if Jesus Christ, the Church and the prophecy of the church are coming to light in Matthew?

Before I read Scott Hahn’s article on the Papacy, I did not quite connect the readings whenever this came around on Sunday. But after that, I thought: so that’s is why they juxtaposed those passages.

Being at CAF and reading those apologetics books have really given me a deeper insight into the readings at Mass.

 

[benedictus2]

Well I guess there might be no proof good enough for the OP. Though it is plainly spelled out in Scripture.

I think that about sums it up. And when a proof cannot be refuted… exit.