Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[1beleevr]

In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Please see the link for more on this argument.

My question is this: For you Non Catholic Christians that hold this interpretation, who holds the Keys of Heaven if not Peter?

It is not too far-fetched to believe that there are as many interpretations of these verses as there are denominations! Some have suggested that Jesus is speaking about Himself when saying,“Upon this Rock,” as He is commonly referred to as the Rock. I don’t know of anyone who disputes that Peter and/or the disciples received the keys to the Kingdom; but where we run into trouble, is when we try to interpret the Petros/Petra argument. Didn’t Jesus change Simon’;s name in John 1:42?

 

[1beleevr]

Likewise,the name Kepha/Cephas was not a common name to give a Jewish male.

I like to believe that: 1) Jesus was speaking about Himself, as the “Rock”, and2) there are way too many interpretations of how Jesus established His church. All of us who are in Christ Jesus are members of His church,; we are part of the Bride of Christ!

 

[elvisman]

Welcome back! Nice to hear from you again…

Just when I thought I was out . . . they pull me back in!!

 

[elvisman]

It is not too far-fetched to believe that there are as many interpretations of these verses as there are denominations! Some have suggested that Jesus is speaking about Himself when saying,“Upon this Rock,” as He is commonly referred to as the Rock. I don’t know of anyone who disputes that Peter and/or the disciples received the keys to the Kingdom; but where we run into trouble, is when we try to interpret the Petros/Petra argument. Didn’t Jesus change Simon’;s name in John 1:42?

**Actually - the real problem is in those who refuse to understand that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic - and there is NO differentiation between Kepha and Kepha.

**Also - there is a historical point to be made here. The name “Petros” didn’**t exist before Matt. 16. It was invented in the translation from Aramaic to Greek. The reason “Petros” was applied to Simon (Peter) was becuase calling him “Petra” would have been silly since it is a feminine noun . . .

 

[1beleevr]

**Actually - the *real ***problem is in those who refuse to understand that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic - and there is NO differentiation between Kepha and Kepha.

Also - there is a historical point to be made here. The name "Petros" didn’t exist before Matt. 16. It was invented in the translation from Aramaic to Greek. The reason “Petros” was applied to Simon (Peter) was becuase calling him “Petra” would have been silly since it is a feminine noun . . .

Hey there, elvisman! In John 1:42, Jesus calls Simon(also called Peter) Cephas, which means rock(lower case), right? So why the argument, however flawed about Petra/Petros?

 

[elvisman]

Hey there, elvisman! In John 1:42, Jesus calls Simon(also called Peter) Cephas, which means rock(lower case), right? So why the argument, however flawed about Petra/Petros?

John was written WAY after Matthew, so that is why he is referred to as also being called Peter so early on in John’s Gospel.

Cephas is merely a transliteration (not translation) of Kepha, meaning large mass of rock. It is a Greek attempt to say, “Kepha”.

 

[Nicea325]

I like to believe that: 1) Jesus was speaking about Himself, as the “Rock”, and2) there are way too many interpretations of how Jesus established His church. All of us who are in Christ Jesus are members of His church,; we are part of the Bride of Christ!

Unfortunately my brother,Jesus was not talking about Himself. He changes Simon name to Kepha and the fact he changes his name from the get-go has a real significance. Second,Peter was not a common name given to Jewish males. Third,the fact there exist to many interpretations does not justify the fact Jesus established His church His way by speaking directly to Peter alone,not the way so many tend to believe. Jesus is God and God is not the author of confusion.

 

[1beleevr]

Unfortunately my brother,Jesus was not talking about Himself. He changes Simon name to Kepha and the fact he changes his name from the get-go has a real significance. Second,Peter was not a common name given to Jewish males. Third,the fact there exist to many interpretations does not justify the fact Jesus established His church His way by speaking directly to Peter alone,not the way so many tend to believe. Jesus is God and God is not the author of confusion.

Whether or not Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock, is debatable as there is no proof that He wasn’t! And while He may have ordained Peter to lead the church, does not mean Peter had sole "custody of the keys to the Kingdom! Non-catholics do not necessarily believe that these verses(Matthew 16:18-19) dictate the beginning of the catholic churc(catholics of course believing that they do!). I am trying to imagine someone reading these verses for the very first time, without anyone telling them that the catholics believe it was the beginning of their religion.How do you think they would interpret the verses? Wasn’t the first church called The Way, not catholic?

 

[1beleevr]

John was written WAY after Matthew, so that is why he is referred to as also being called Peter so early on in John’s Gospel.

Cephas is merely a transliteration (not translation) of Kepha, meaning large mass of rock. It is a Greek attempt to say, “Kepha”.

So, what is your point? The four Gospels all relate events that happened during Jesus’s days of ministry, just some different accounts! For instance 3 of the 4 say that Mary Magdalene was the first to see the resurrected Christ(there are some who mistakenly believe that Peter was first). Peter, Cephas, Petros,Kepha, so what? Jesus, Yeshua, Yesu, Joshua???

 

[Nicea325]

Whether or not Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock, is debatable as there is no proof that He wasn’t! And while He may have ordained Peter to lead the church, does not mean Peter had sole "custody of the keys to the Kingdom! Non-catholics do not necessarily believe that these verses(Matthew 16:18-19) dictate the beginning of the catholic churc(catholics of course believing that they do!). I am trying to imagine someone reading these verses for the very first time, without anyone telling them that the catholics believe it was the beginning of their religion.How do you think they would interpret the verses? Wasn’t the first church called The Way, not catholic?

Debatable? It is very apparent Jesus was talking to Peter,not to John,Matthew,James,etc or any other follower. I do not get any hint from Matt:16:18-19 Jesus may have been talking to Himself or about Himself. Incorrect, it is Peter…ALONE who received the keys and if you cannot connect it with the OT,by all means let me know. Where people get the idea or belief the other Apostles or others had custody to the keys is beyond me?

Reading those verses for the first time? Reading and comprehension are two entire different things my friend. Are hearing and listening the same? The Jews listened orally for centuires before Moses even existed.

BTW: Yes the Way is correct,but the church Christ founded is UNIVERSAL (catholic). Jesus:Go and preach to ALL (Universal) nations and baptize them in the name of the Father…

 

[bluelake]

In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Please see the link for more on this argument.

My question is this: For you Non Catholic Christians that hold this interpretation, who holds the Keys of Heaven if not Peter?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Whether or not Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock, is debatable as there is no proof that He wasn’t! And while He may have ordained Peter to lead the church, does not mean Peter had sole "custody of the keys to the Kingdom! Non-catholics do not necessarily believe that these verses(Matthew 16:18-19) dictate the beginning of the catholic churc(catholics of course believing that they do!). I am trying to imagine someone reading these verses for the very first time, without anyone telling them that the catholics believe it was the beginning of their religion.How do you think they would interpret the verses? Wasn’t the first church called The Way, not catholic?

And Ignatius of Antioch in 107 was calling the Church katholike’(universal)-Catholic.

And you are still missing the obvious question. Jesus gave Peter a name that means “rock”-Kepha, a name that was traditionally reserved for God alone. What does THAT mean?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

And Ignatius of Antioch in 107 was calling the Church katholike’(universal)-Catholic.

And you are still missing the obvious question. Jesus gave Peter a name that means “rock”-Kepha, a name that was traditionally reserved for God alone. What does THAT mean?

Jesus did not give Peter a name reserved for God alone. He gave him the name petros which means small rock or rolling stone. It is never used to refer to God. In fact wherever you see this word in the bible it is used to refer to Peter the apostle and as Strong’s Concordance says, it is used to refer to Peter eclusively. Petra on the other hand, when it is not used to refer to a large immovable rock, it used to refer to Jesus. Jesus himself uses this word in Luke 6 to refer to Himself.
47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: (petra) and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. (petra)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is interesting how man is able to find ways from his new knowledge and understanding to try and distort a 2000 year old “unchanged” divine revelation from God in Simon bar jona, who when Jesus begot Peter by changing his name consecrating Peter to himself as Rock.

I thought the popular protestant interpretation of Mt. 16 dealt with Jesus building his church upon Peter’s faith? Now we have a new interpretation of late, that Jesus was building his church upon himself? If we were living in the first 4 centuries a.d today, these two new biblical interpretations views of Mt.16 would have been labeled heresy bind ed and loosed excommunicated from the Apostolic Catholic Church.

This play on words dealing with the intellect in order to cause confusion does not deal with the faith of the Gospels. The whole content must be taken into consideration as well as the whole of scripture interpretation.

For example; When Jesus begins to build his Church, it is Simon who receives the sign from heaven, that Jesus changes his name to “Rock” Peter. The “upon this Rock” verse gets revealed in the next scriptural verses;

Mt. 16:19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

When “build upon this Rock” is taken in with the whole of scripture it is definitive that Jesus makes his claim that Peter is to operate with the authority of keys to the kingdom of heaven on earth (church militant), while Jesus confirms Peter binding and loosing from heaven. Proves that Jesus is building his Church upon Peter on earth who now possesses the keys to the Kingdom of God. Jesus would not contradict himself by giving the keys to the kingdom of God to Peter while building his church upon himself?

This new interpretation of Mt.16 nullifies the passion, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus were building his church upon himself, then where is his spotless bride? Another contradiction of the gospels if one holds to this new Mt. 16 interpretation of Jesus building his church upon himself. I think a careful study of the biblical word “ecclessia” (Church) needs to be studied here first before graduating into interpreting what Jesus is stating in Mt.16…" upon this rock", for the Church (ecclessia) is a living person the bride of Jesus Christ. To falsely claim that Jesus builds his church upon himself, massacres the text into stating that Jesus is self love, which is never the case with Jesus who gave himself to death for his bride (Church) us, because of Love, never self love.

Notice below how Jesus teaches that there will be one chosen leader among the apostles which will be to serve them all, then take note how Jesus addresses Peter after promising to “confer a kingdom on you”.

Later after the resurrection before the ascension into heaven Jesus commands Peter to tend, feed his flock (church) on earth until he comes. John 21 15-19

Luke 22: 25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so.** Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. **27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, **
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” **

John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” **
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, **"Feed my sheep. **

Peace be with you

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Jesus did not give Peter a name reserved for God alone. He gave him the name petros which means small rock or rolling stone. It is never used to refer to God. In fact wherever you see this word in the bible it is used to refer to Peter the apostle and as Strong’s Concordance says, it is used to refer to Peter eclusively. Petra on the other hand, when it is not used to refer to a large immovable rock, it used to refer to Jesus. Jesus himself uses this word in Luke 6 to refer to Himself.
47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: (petra) and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. (petra)

Repeating a tired and flawed argument doesn’t make it true. And you are comparing apples(Matthew’s gospel written in Aramaic to a Jewish audience) to oranges(Luke’s gospel written in Greek to a Greek speaking audience).

The “petros” argument is irrelevent because the apostles were not Greek speaking diaspora Jews, they were simple fishermen from Galilee who spoke Aramaic. Strong’s concordance holds about as much theological weight to me as the New York Times holds journalistic integrity-none. Backing up error with more error is not demonstrative.

The Aramaic word for rock is Kepha; that is what Jesus named Simon. The closest translation to Greek is Petra. Because the Greek language is based on gender the translator is stuck using a feminie name for a man. Grammatically this is absurd, so the translator makes the obvious change giving Simon the masculine “Petros”. The translator never intended in the translation what you are asserting. And Jesus is not a Hollywood actor. The for Jesus to speak of Himself in the third person the way He does in the text is grammitcally and logically absurd.

Paul testifies to Peter’s new name by using a trasliteration from the Aramaic Kepha to the Greek “Cephas”-rock, not pebble.

Now answer the question. Jesus gave Peter a name reserved for God alone, what does that signify?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

First of all the bible was not formulated in Rome in 382 AD. The OT was in existance long before there ever was a CC. The new testament canon may have been confirmed for Catholic use at this council but it was not “formulated” here. Also, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, where is this manuscript?

Others have done splendid work refuting your erroneous biblical interpretations.

Regarding your comments above, it depends on what your definition of “formulated” is.

The Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the “New Testament” at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382. At the very same time, she canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the “Old Testament.” Her entire collection of Scriptures she named ta Biblia – the “Little Books” – the Bible. The same canon of Scriptures was reiterated at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) and approved by Popes (i.e., Papas, Fathers).

Use whatever term you wish – formulated, designated, discerned, named, canonized – the Church was nearly 400 years old, and already 37 men, including Peter, had held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven --*** before*** there was a collection of writings called “the Bible.”

And you want to tell the Church what her own book means! :whacky:

No autographs (originals) of the Scriptures survived antiquity. They exist only because the Catholic Church arduously, laboriously, carefully copied them by hand for 15 centuries until the printing press was invented. All extant fragments and manuscripts came from Catholic hands, so why do you believe the Bible?

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[elvisman]

So, what is your point? The four Gospels all relate events that happened during Jesus’s days of ministry, just some different accounts! For instance 3 of the 4 say that Mary Magdalene was the first to see the resurrected Christ(there are some who mistakenly believe that Peter was first). Peter, Cephas, Petros,Kepha, so what? Jesus, Yeshua, Yesu, Joshua???

What is my point? Did you read the title of this thread?

I am stressing the fact that Peter is the ROCK - the KEPHA. There is no differentiation from "You are KEPHA" and "on this KEPHA, I will build my Church". That is the entire point of this thread.

In your last post - you said that Peter is called “Cephas” (lower case) in John 1:42 . WHERE do you get “lower case” from??

**You also say in another post that ALL who are in Christ are part of the Church. NOT so. **
There are many Christians (Protestants) who are separated from the Church. If you are not part of the Catholic Church, obedient to the Magesterium - you are not part of it and you need to come home.

 

[Javl]

But the Gospel was given to us in Greek and as I have shown it **is **relavant in Greek.

Only because YOU either think, or make, it so.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

First of all the bible was not formulated in Rome in 382 AD. The OT was in existance long before there ever was a CC. The new testament canon may have been confirmed for Catholic use at this council but it was not “formulated” here. Also, if Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, where is this manuscript?

The Bible was first ( originally ) formulated at the Council of Rome in 325 AD. There was NO OT before 200 AD. All the Jews had was the Pentateuch and it was not even considered official. Various scriptures were used in the synagogues and these were not used by all. The Tanakh, the official Hebrew canon or OT, was instituted in 200 AD. And the Church was known as the Catholic Church for over 100 years by then.

Mathew was known to have preached the Gospel in Aramaic and Hebrew to the Jews and that his writings were also in either Aramaic or Hebrew. When he wrote the Gospel, he wrote it for the Jews alone and tradition has it that it was in Aramaic. It was later translated into Greek for the Greek speaking Jews.

As for the manuscript I can also ask where are the original manuscripts of all of the other Gospels, scriptures, letters, epistles, etc. that appear in the Bible? For the majority all we have are copies. So asking your question really is grasping at straws.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Eutychus123]

The Bible was first ( originally ) formulated at the Council of Rome in 325 AD. There was NO OT before 200 AD. All the Jews had was the Pentateuch and it was not even considered official. Various scriptures were used in the synagogues and these were not used by all. The Tanakh, the official Hebrew canon or OT, was instituted in 200 AD. And the Church was known as the Catholic Church for over 100 years by then.

Mathew was known to have preached the Gospel in Aramaic and Hebrew to the Jews and that his writings were also in either Aramaic or Hebrew. When he wrote the Gospel, he wrote it for the Jews alone and tradition has it that it was in Aramaic. It was later translated into Greek for the Greek speaking Jews.

As for the manuscript I can also ask where are the original manuscripts of all of the other Gospels, scriptures, letters, epistles, etc. that appear in the Bible? For the majority all we have are copies. So asking your question really is grasping at straws.

Hey, Javi,

The Jews had the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, ( see Luke 24:44). I am not sure when they “closed” the canon. Do you have a source on 200AD?

Eut
PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem