MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

I do not know about the laws where you live … but, over here… dead horses are not to be overly beaten! Especially, in such an ‘uncharitable’ manner!

Now, you know, I have not had any response to my comment about Peter actually being a tiny pebble (!) but with the mass (no pun intended) of a astronomical Black Hole! that Christ would build His Church on! Surely, a ‘pebble’ with such mass could easily withstand the hurricane winds of the Devil. Oh, well, I will briefly retreat from wit and charm and stay to the more tried and true…

God bless

For all the flack I get I should be crying " ad hominem"

First I get accused of being unwilling to debate. Then I was told I was rude for saying that someone had selective readings when it is evident such an issue existed or he would not have said I am unwilling to debate.

Why can’t people just stick to reason and logic and do away with this emotional rif raf?

And why do people confuse charity with political correctness?

 

[benedictus2]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

424 *Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the **rock of *this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the living Stone, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.[6]*

881** ** The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church.** He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. *

 

[adrift]

From above:

“To the best of my knowledge, Luther wound up doing quite a lot of picking and choosing. For example, here are two items for your consideration:
1.) For about 1,500 years (prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Church had Seven Sacraments - Luther decided his followers only needed 2.
2.) The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Holy Scripture in about 400AD through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) - Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide.”

Oh my. Regarding sacraments, perhaps I’ll start here:

1. Can you cite any church father who spoke of 7 sacraments? Can you even cite anyone at all before 1000 AD who spoke of 7 sacraments?
2. To us as Lutherans, what matters is not what the church said
3. The word “sacrament” is not used in Scripture the way we use it. It has different definitions to different people. Therefore, arguing about the number of sacraments is a bit silly.

The Lutheran Church has preferred the definition of Augustine, “Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,” “Add the word to the element and it becomes a sacrament.” A “sacrament,” then, includes an outward, material element, and Christ’s command and promise of grace connected with that material element (Augustine’s verbum). Defined that way, there are only two sacraments – Baptism and the Supper. None of the others have all the ingredients.

If you want to remove the requirement for a material element used by God’s command, in fact, the Augsburg Confession is willing to call Absolution a sacrament.

“The Catholic Church gave the world the Canon of Holy Scripture in about 400AD through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church)”

1. Would you please refer me to a list of canonical books from the 5th century which includes the Apocrypha?
2. Do you acknowledge that in 1st century Palestine, “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” Jesus referred to meant the Hebrew Scriptures, not to the apocryphal books? In other words, the distinction between the inspired OT books and the apocrypha predates even Christ, who gave it his approval.
3. Can you help me understand the difference between Luther’s “Sola Scriptura” and Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures? Cyril instructed his catechumens:

“Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell you these things, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

“But take and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to you, and is established from all Scripture … For the present, commit to memory the Faith *, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.”

So, I contend, Luther’s demand for proof from the Scriptures was a reaffirmation of Sola Scriptura. Luther certainly did not invent it.

AIL*

This is interesting but off topic. Would you please start a new thread addressing your points? It seems that there is more than one subject so please more than one thread. This thread is on Peter the Rock. I would love to address the subjects that you raise just not in this thread. I hope that you will not go missing like our OP.

 

[adrift]

This is interesting but off topic. Would you please start a new thread addressing your points? It seems that there is more than one subject so please more than one thread. This thread is on Peter the Rock. I would love to address the subjects that you raise just not in this thread. I hope that you will not go missing like our OP.

I would perfer this was in a thread of its own but I wanted to answer at least in part.

1. Can you cite any church father who spoke of 7 sacraments? Can you even cite anyone at all before 1000 AD who spoke of 7 sacraments?
2. To us as Lutherans, what matters is not what the church said
3. The word “sacrament” is not used in Scripture the way we use it. It has different definitions to different people. Therefore, arguing about the number of sacraments is a bit silly.

From the Catholic Encylopedia on Sacramentes

Just as many doctrines were believed, but not always accurately expressed, until the condemnation of heresies or the development of religious knowledge called forth a neat and precise formula, so also the sacraments were accepted and used by the Church for centuries before Aristotelian philosophy, applied to the systematic explanation of Christian doctrine, furnished the accurate definition and enumeration of Peter Lombard. The earlier Christians were more concerned with the use of sacred rites than with scientific formulae, being like the pious author of the “Imitation of Christ”, who wrote: “I had rather feel compunction than know its definition” (I, i). +]
Thus time was required, not for the development of the sacraments - except in so far as the Church may have determined what was left under her control by Jesus Christ – but for the growth and knowledge of the sacraments.

LINK

Did Jesus use deuterocanical books?
The short answer is yes.

 

[PJM]

MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

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) -

***Where this even partly true, the bible would be usless. ***

I can provide a list of FIFTY FIRST accomplishments of Peter which are further suppored by these two verses:

**Matt.10: 2 “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;"

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular]*** built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets***, **Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

Here then are ten of Peters FIRST [keep in mind there are at least fourty more]

Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

**Peter **alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

**Peter **alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

**Peter **alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

**Peter **first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

**Peter **alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

**Peter **is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

**Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter **in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

Further searching STRONG’s Hebrew and Greek lexicon a non-Catholic source] one finfs this:

**Peter from Hebrew: Result of search for “Peter”:
6363 peter peh’-ter or pitrah {pit-raw’}; from 6362; a fissure, i.e. (concretely) firstling (as opening the matrix):–firstling, openeth, such as open. **

And in Greek: Result of search for “Peter”:
***2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas. *4074. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786. **

The autthor als o fails to ponit out that in Hebrew the terms are “GENDER SENSITIVE”…
Surely a PERFECT God would NOT refer to Peter as “female gender!”

Then of course thereis the historical evidence [in abundence] of the Early fathrs who too give testimonny of Peter as the recogonized head of the ONE True Church…

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

GREATER research ought to be used in making these bold pronouncements

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

This is interesting but off topic. Would you please start a new thread addressing your points? It seems that there is more than one subject so please more than one thread. This thread is on Peter the Rock. I would love to address the subjects that you raise just not in this thread. I hope that you will not go missing like our OP.

I’d be happy to. I’ll even start a fresh “Peter the Rock” thread.

It would be of particular interest to me if we can avoid the atmospherics, and hopefully do more than recite other people’s talking points. I will unfailingly obey my internet rule of thumb – I refuse to converse with people who descend to ad hominem histrionics.

I’d also appreciate it if people don’t assume I’ve run off and vanished if I have not posted for 48 hours, like one individual above. I have a life I enjoy living, and I also prefer to think and study, instead of just recite talking points.

Is there anyone around who actually knows Latin, Greek, and/or Hebrew? I have reading knowledge of all 3, and these conversations are quite likely to head off in that direction. But posting about specific grammatical points is meaningless and trite if the intended audience can’t benefit from them.

Please look for the threads, regarding at least a subset of my initial post, to be created over the next day or two.

AIL

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

I’m interested in a civil dialogue; I neither indulge in the trolling and character assassination that pervade the internet, nor converse with those who do. Life’s too short for that nonsense, not to mention that the Lord forbids such conduct. Nor do I live and breathe here; if I haven’t replied to something someone wrote in 48 hours, it’s entirely possible I’m off living my life, thinking, reading, or other things.

I am familiar with the following “talking points,” I will call them, which Catholics generally use to discuss Matt. 16:18. Please read and consider the following before repeating any of these:

1. “There is no difference in meaning in Koine Greek.” That’s very easy to say, of course, but saying it doesn’t make it true. These two words mean different things in classical Greek. I find no evidence this changed in any of the standard NT Greek lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Louw-Nida, etc.) I’m aware of no evidence for this assertion, only that the assertion is made. Can anyone refer me to actual evidence, either raw evidence in the Greek, or a study done by someone who refers to the Greek text(s) and cites at least one or two references, that use petros and petra interchangably?
2. “Jesus used Petros because Simon was a man, and petra is a feminine noun.” It is perfectly normal in Koine Greek, in fact in any inflected language I know of, for a predicate nominative noun to disagree in gender with the subject it refers to. The New Testament even offers an example of this using the word petra! 1 Cor. 10:4: h petra hn o xristos – “The rock (petra – feminine subject) was Christ (xristos – masculine predicate nominative).”
3. “Petros and petra are the same word.” Well, no, they’re not the same word. They’re two different words which have a common root, and are in the same semantic domain (they both talk about that hard stuff.) These two different words have two different meanings in classical Greek.
4. “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

 

[adrift]

I’d be happy to. I’ll even start a fresh “Peter the Rock” thread.

to converse with people who descend to ad hominem histrionics.

I’d also appreciate it if people don’t assume I’ve run off and vanished if I have not posted for 48 hours, like one individual above. I have a life I enjoy living, and I also prefer to think and study, instead of just recite talking points.

Is there anyone around who actually knows Latin, Greek, and/or Hebrew?

I wasn’t assuming anything. You have posted very little and seemed to have felt that your were insulted. I was afraid that it might have sent you away. What you speak of I have seen from all kinds of different people. Just ignore them. There is a feature for that. I look forward to conversing with you however, don’t assume if I don’t post regularly that it is anything but limited opportunity.

 

[adrift]

1. “There is no difference in meaning in Koine Greek.” That’s very easy to say, of course, but saying it doesn’t make it true. These two words mean different things in classical Greek. I find no evidence this changed in any of the standard NT Greek lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Louw-Nida, etc.) I’m aware of no evidence for this assertion, only that the assertion is made. Can anyone refer me to actual evidence, either raw evidence in the Greek, or a study done by someone who refers to the Greek text(s) and cites at least one or two references, that use petros and petra interchangably?

I have searched for Petros in Greek dictionaries on line only to be told that no such word exist or that it is the name Peter.
A search today brought this up

You state that you have not found evidence of a change but I fine no evidence that there was a change to be made.

These versus cannot be seperated from the rest of what Jesus says.

1. Jesus Changes Sinons name to Peter. A name change is never done lightly. In the other thread someone stated this better I will try to find it later and post it. Found it

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.

1. Jesus follows up the name change with giving Peter and Peter alone the Keys to heaven and the power to bind and loose. Jesus says something similiar later when He gives that Apostles the power to forgive sins but this is different than that.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I know absolutely nothing about the normal arguments over the Petros/Petra controversy. I am not a source of doctrine. However, being that we’re supposed to be “beyond the talking points,” I think I can say something.

1. “Petros and petra are the same word.” Well, no, they’re not the same word. They’re two different words which have a common root, and are in the same semantic domain (they both talk about that hard stuff.) These two different words have two different meanings in classical Greek.

My take on it: I smile warmly at the thought of Our Lord making a pun.

 

[benedictus2]

I’d be happy to. I’ll even start a fresh “Peter the Rock” thread.

It would be of particular interest to me if we can avoid the atmospherics, and hopefully do more than recite other people’s talking points. I will unfailingly obey my internet rule of thumb – I refuse to converse with people who descend to ad hominem histrionics.

I’d also appreciate it if people don’t assume I’ve run off and vanished if I have not posted for 48 hours, like one individual above. I have a life I enjoy living, and I also prefer to think and study, instead of just recite talking points.

Is there anyone around who actually knows Latin, Greek, and/or Hebrew? I have reading knowledge of all 3, and these conversations are quite likely to head off in that direction. But posting about specific grammatical points is meaningless and trite if the intended audience can’t benefit from them.

Please look for the threads, regarding at least a subset of my initial post, to be created over the next day or two.

AIL

Everyone is still waiting for your rebuttal.

This post still does not contain any.

Also, I refer you to my post 112 which gives an explanation of what “ad hominem” means so we get a clear understanding of what that term really means.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7359234&postcount=112

It is important in any debate that we get a good grasp of whatever terms we use so that we get a good clear discussion un-encumbered by wrong usage of certain philosophical terms.

 

[benedictus2]

***Where this even partly true, the bible would be usless. ***

I can provide a list of FIFTY FIRST accomplishments of Peter which are further suppored by these two verses:

**Matt.10: 2 “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;"

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular]*** built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets***, **Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

Here then are ten of Peters FIRST [keep in mind there are at least fourty more]

Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

**Peter **alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

**Peter **alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

**Peter **alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

**Peter **first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

**Peter **alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

**Peter **is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

**Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter **in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

Further searching STRONG’s Hebrew and Greek lexicon a non-Catholic source] one finfs this:

Peter from Hebrew: Result of search for “Peter”:
6363 peter peh’-ter or pitrah {pit-raw’}; from 6362; a fissure, i.e. (concretely) firstling (as opening the matrix):–firstling, openeth, such as open.

And in Greek: Result of search for “Peter”:
***2786. Kephas kay-fas’ of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:–Cephas. ***4074. Petros pet’-ros apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:–Peter, rock. Compare 2786.

The autthor als o fails to ponit out that in Hebrew the terms are “GENDER SENSITIVE”…
Surely a PERFECT God would NOT refer to Peter as “female gender!”

Then of course thereis the historical evidence [in abundence] of the Early fathrs who too give testimonny of Peter as the recogonized head of the ONE True Church…

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

GREATER research ought to be used in making these bold pronouncements

Brilliant! As always.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

It really sounds like more dead horse beating to me…

No response will be given - either on this thread or, I doubt, on any other.

Based on what we have seen, many of us are ‘quite serious’ about Peter (not his faith, confession or any other item) being selected by God the Father - with this fact being acknowledged by Christ, and then Christ proclaimed that Peter would be the foundation on which Christ would build His Church on. And, that Church is the Catholic Church - the evidence being that the Catholic Church has the line of of succession from Peter to Benedict XVI.

All of the claims of multiple languages are of little value if the very sense of history is ignored.

God bless

Everyone is still waiting for your rebuttal.

This post still does not contain any.

 

[benedictus2]

Completely off topic.

But some disturbing quotes from someone said to be a “reformer”

Luther, Exposing the Myth

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

It really sounds like more dead horse beating to me…

No response will be given - either on this thread or, I doubt, on any other.

Based on what we have seen, many of us are ‘quite serious’ about Peter (not his faith, confession or any other item) being selected by God the Father - with this fact being acknowledged by Christ, and then Christ proclaimed that Peter would be the foundation on which Christ would build His Church on. And, that Church is the Catholic Church - the evidence being that the Catholic Church has the line of of succession from Peter to Benedict XVI.

All of the claims of multiple languages are of little value if the very sense of history is ignored.

God bless

He did post a rebuttal (which I thought was quite a good rebuttal but that was pulled along with my reply)

He cited the Cathechism of the Catholic Church par 424 and said ") So the understanding I prefer is one of the interpretations found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "

But of course he thought paragraph 424 was supporting his interpretation but it clearly was not. He seemed to have miss the “OF” in the paragraph.

If he truly prefers the understanding of the Catechism then I thought I would write the other relevant paragraphs in the Catechism. So I did a post dedicated entirely to the paragraphs in the Catechism that refuted his view.

That was another case of citing something that was completely misunderstood since it did not say what he thought it said.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Ooops - sorry, I guess I missed it.

So, 424 contained the basis for a rebuttal…?

He did post a rebuttal (which I thought was quite a good rebuttal but that was pulled along with my reply)

He cited the Cathechism of the Catholic Church par 424 and said ") So the understanding I prefer is one of the interpretations found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "

But of course he thought paragraph 424 was supporting his interpretation but it clearly was not. He seemed to have miss the “OF” in the paragraph.

If he truly prefers the understanding of the Catechism then I thought I would write the other relevant paragraphs in the Catechism. So I did a post dedicated entirely to the paragraphs in the Catechism that refuted his view.

That was another case of citing something that was completely misunderstood since it did not say what he thought it said.

 

[elvisman]

I’m interested in a civil dialogue; I neither indulge in the trolling and character assassination that pervade the internet, nor converse with those who do. Life’s too short for that nonsense, not to mention that the Lord forbids such conduct. Nor do I live and breathe here; if I haven’t replied to something someone wrote in 48 hours, it’s entirely possible I’m off living my life, thinking, reading, or other things.

I am familiar with the following “talking points,” I will call them, which Catholics generally use to discuss Matt. 16:18. Please read and consider the following before repeating any of these:

1. “There is no difference in meaning in Koine Greek.” That’s very easy to say, of course, but saying it doesn’t make it true. These two words mean different things in classical Greek. I find no evidence this changed in any of the standard NT Greek lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Louw-Nida, etc.) I’m aware of no evidence for this assertion, only that the assertion is made. Can anyone refer me to actual evidence, either raw evidence in the Greek, or a study done by someone who refers to the Greek text(s) and cites at least one or two references, that use petros and petra interchangably?
2. “Jesus used Petros because Simon was a man, and petra is a feminine noun.” It is perfectly normal in Koine Greek, in fact in any inflected language I know of, for a predicate nominative noun to disagree in gender with the subject it refers to. The New Testament even offers an example of this using the word petra! 1 Cor. 10:4: h petra hn o xristos – “The rock (petra – feminine subject) was Christ (xristos – masculine predicate nominative).”
3. “Petros and petra are the same word.” Well, no, they’re not the same word. They’re two different words which have a common root, and are in the same semantic domain (they both talk about that hard stuff.) These two different words have two different meanings in classical Greek.
4. “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

Actually, many scholars believe that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Your claim that we don’t have a manuscript in Aramaic is moot since we don’t have any autograph of ANY of the 4 Gospels. They are all copies of copies.

**Also - I don’**t know where you get your information about the Early Church Fathers but Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus also claimed that Matthew was originally written in his native tongue (Hebrew/Aramaic).

Finally - it IS entirely possible that Jesus also spoke Greek as you said. However, it is highly unlikely that he spoke Greek to his Apostles. Greek was the language of commerce in the first century.

So - it is most probable that Jesus told Simon, "And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

This is the reason Paul refers to Peter - not as Petros or Petra - but as Cephas, which is the Greek transliteration of Kepha (Gal. 1:18, 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5).

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

I have searched for Petros in Greek dictionaries on line only to be told that no such word exist or that it is the name Peter.
A search today brought this up

You state that you have not found evidence of a change but I fine no evidence that there was a change to be made.

Unfortunately, my NT Greek tools are in Libronix on my Windows VM, and when I just tried to boot it up I discovered it’s having issues. However, a quick online trip reveals four entries from three or four different Greek lexicons (click on the links to the lexicons near the top of the page, “middle Liddel” is one of them):

For petros: Basic meaning, a stone or a piece of rock. Authors cited include Homer, Xenophon and Euripides.
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=pe%2Ftros&la=greek#lexicon

For petra: Basic meaning, rock, freq. referring to cliffs; rock (which a cave is in); stone (as a building material); a ledge or shelf of rock. A number of classical authors are cited.
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=petra&la=greek#lexicon

Looking at the examples in these citations, it almost seems like the difference is that petra is “living rock,” rock you’d have to break or cut to separate it from the earth, whereas all the examples of petros are rocks or stones that are already broken out or cut out of the earth. But it’s small sample, so take it for what it’s worth.

There is definitely a difference between the words, and the standard ancient Greek lexicons all have it. That is why I’ve asked for clear evidence that these words became interchangeable by the 1st century AD. Unless that evidence exists, understanding two different words to mean the same thing/person, especially when juxtaposed as they are in Matthew, is dubious at the very best, and more likely to mislead than inform.

These versus cannot be seperated from the rest of what Jesus says.

1. Jesus Changes Sinons name to Peter. A name change is never done lightly. In the other thread someone stated this better I will try to find it later and post it. Found it
2. Jesus follows up the name change with giving Peter and Peter alone the Keys to heaven and the power to bind and loose. Jesus says something similiar later when He gives that Apostles the power to forgive sins but this is different than that.

No, of course the words need their context. However, we cannot move on to understanding the broader meaning of the verse if we don’t even know whether or not petros and petra can, by the rules of grammar and language, both refer to Simon. And as of now, in any Greek lexicon I’ve ever looked in (a dozen over the years?), it is beyond any doubt that petros and petra meant quite different things in classical Greek. And I have not seen any evidence that this changed by the 1st century. Frankly, I don’t think there is any, but I am more than willing to be proven wrong. Since any number of people here have made this assertion, I’m asking for proof. If the assertion is right, the proof should be quite easy to find.

AIL

 

[AnIrishLutheran]

My take on it: I smile warmly at the thought of Our Lord making a pun.

I do too!

AIL

 

[CMatt25]

Jesus follows up the name change with giving Peter and Peter alone the Keys to heaven and the power to bind and loose. Jesus says something similiar later when He gives that Apostles the power to forgive sins but this is different than that.

Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

Only 2 chapters later he gives the other disciples the power to bind and loose too. That’s what keys do. They bind and loosen locks.