"On this rock": petra, petros and problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystophilus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
porthos11:
From the contexts and the way Peter was regarded since within the early Church, he had clear primacy among the apostles. He was indeed flawed and clumsy, but the primacy was clearly there. This primacy, however, is not sufficient to prove the present-day Papacy. To do that, we Catholics have to prove the validity of Apostolic Succession and the succession of this primacy given to Peter. This thread only concerns Peter’s primacy based on his name. The NT and history clearly establishes that.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying; thank you.
 
40.png
Bishopite:
An automobile sounds masculine but it is feminine Le Auto or in French L’auto. Le is feminine and La masculine so that’s NOT at all a problem in Greek either.
Click to expand...
Apart from the glaring error in the logic here (if it’s true for modern French, of course it must be true for C1st Greek - how could it not be?), you are arguing that gender form does not indicate gender, which directly contradicts your later assertion that Kephas could not be “Petra” because “petra” is a feminine form. To which would you prefer to hold?
Jesus was NOT a native Greek-speaker so to fully understand the Scriptures we have to go back to the original languages spoken in that time period in order fully understand what was being said, right?
Click to expand...
As popular a belief as this is, it is fundamentally incorrect. While Gospels were written in Greek, the majority of the conversations described therein were presumably conducted in Aramaic. To understand the spoken words, we would have to go back to the Aramaic, an exercise which would require compounded assumptions. To understand the text, we have to read it. The text is not the words that were spoken, and fully understanding one (were that even possible) would not mean fully understanding the other.
And lithos means what? Pebble so the Greek would have used lithos in order to show Peter was the pebble right? … Again lithos means pebble or small rock.
Click to expand...
You are evidently confusing “lithos” with “petros”. “lithos” has a much broader meaning, covering everything from the stones thrown by warriors to the stones used for building to stone as a material substance. The likely reason that Kephas did not call himself “lithos” is the fact that “lithos” could be used as a pejorative (q.v. Aristophanes, Clouds, l.1202).
The reason that the term is rendered as “Petros” (rather than “Petra”) in regard to Peter is because it is a man’s name!..And one could not call Peter “Petra” without making him feminine! 🙂
Click to expand...
As noted elsewhere in the thread, “petros” is usually but not always masculine, “lithos” likewise: the Greeks were more flexible about gender than I had initially estimated. I have also learnt that the usage of common nouns as names for people is not as unusual as I had thought, but was more common with women’s names than with men’s (thanks, Dr. McK).
the only way to render “petra” / “rock” as a man’s NAME would be “Petros” or “Petrus.” “Petra” was not an option.
Click to expand...
Again, as noted elsewhere in the thread, the question is not why “petros” was used in Mt 16:18. That had to be used, because it was already known as the apostle’s name. The question is why “petra” was used, and the most probable answer presented thus far is that it was used to show both the connection and the difference between the entity formerly known as Simon and the entity upon which Christ would build.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
We could chase this around all week, but I think that there are some things that ought to be noted:
Click to expand...
I told you in my original post in this thread I was not qualified to discuss this subject. I think I have proven that now. 🙂

I appreciate all the research you have done it is enlighting.

I also appreciate the others that posted links to other threads on the subject.
 
The Bible refers to the Church as a bride to Christ, Eph 5:23-29. It also states that “The Church”(singular) is the pillar and foundation of truth!, 1 Tim 3:15. What church is this, It the Church built on the Kapha(Aramaic for large rock) a.k.a. Peter, the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. “You Kapha and on this Kapha 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 br bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. This is the same church which put together the Apostle Creed, Nicene Creed, defined the Trinity or Tri-Unity. Protected Holy Scripture from destruction during pagan occupations in which many churches and Christians were destroyed. The Church in 382 A.D. via Pope Damasus wrote a decree listing what books should be selected for the old and new Testament Canon of 73 books. In 393 Council of Hippo it approved the listing of OT and NT canon of 73 books. And again in 397 Council of Carthage it approved the same canon of OT and NT 73 books. This Bible stood alone for 1200 years before KJV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top