Peter and the "Rock"

[Veronica97]

I am having a discussion with a family member about Peter being the rock of the Church. This is what he says:
In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus calls Simon “Peter” which, in Greek, is “petros” and is a small, wobbly stone. And then He says, “and upon this Rock (in Greek “Petra” which is a Solid, Massive and Firm Rock. And, it refers to Jesus Himself) I will build My Church…” It is upon Himself that the Lord builds His Church. A petros is only a small and weak stone and is by no stretch strong enough or even big enough to have something as large and “heavy” as the Church built upon it. Jesus was saying that "you, Peter, are a brick in the Building called My Church and you, along with the other Apostles and Believers are stacked and built upon Me, the Solid Foundation of the Church.

How do I refute this?

 

[Nelka]

:compcoff:

 

[mynamesjoe]

Listen to this or have him listen to this.

youtube.com/watch?v=VXCUSAEVNIE

Steve takes a couple different angles at this, but I can assure you, there are more.

One of the problems is that the entire passage isn’t being taken into context. If one reads the passage before and after, one can clearly see that Jesus is giving Peter the sole authority.

 

[bzkoss236]

Check this out, it might be of some help: catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

 

[Godfollower]

I am having a discussion with a family member about Peter being the rock of the Church. This is what he says:
In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus calls Simon “Peter” which, in Greek, is “petros” and is a small, wobbly stone. And then He says, “and upon this Rock (in Greek “Petra” which is a Solid, Massive and Firm Rock. And, it refers to Jesus Himself) I will build My Church…” It is upon Himself that the Lord builds His Church. A petros is only a small and weak stone and is by no stretch strong enough or even big enough to have something as large and “heavy” as the Church built upon it. Jesus was saying that "you, Peter, are a brick in the Building called My Church and you, along with the other Apostles and Believers are stacked and built upon Me, the Solid Foundation of the Church.

How do I refute this?

By telling him it isn’t true.

The Petra/Petros controversy only works if you choose the right dialects of Greek. Moreover, Jesus didn’t say “Petra” or “Petros.” He said “Kephas” (or “Cephas,” depending on your transliteration). The Aramaic word “Kepha” means “Rock.” Spell the Aramaic “Kepha” in Greek lettering and you get “Kepha,” and you add an “s” to make it masculine (because Peter was male): thus “Kephas.” But the word to which “Kepha” actually translates is “Petra.” But “Petra” is feminine, and Peter wasn’t. So you change the ending from “-a” to “-os” to reflect his masculinity. Thus “Petros.”

To reiterate, though, Jesus’ actual words were “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Kepha; and upon this kepha I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (There was no upper-case v. lower-case issue at the time; that came from the printing press).

Moreover, consider what Simon was called once Jesus renamed him. Paul repeatedly called Simon, not “Pebble” or “Rock” but “Kephas” or “Cephas” (the Anglicized spelling).

The Bible reflects that everyone understood Simon to have been renamed Kephas/Cephas by Jesus Himself. And everyone understood it that way until some people came along fifteen centuries later and thought they knew better.

 

[johnnyjones]

By telling him it isn’t true.

The Petra/Petros controversy only works if you choose the right dialects of Greek. Moreover, Jesus didn’t say “Petra” or “Petros.” He said “Kephas” (or “Cephas,” depending on your transliteration). The Aramaic word “Kepha” means “Rock.” Spell the Aramaic “Kepha” in Greek lettering and you get “Kepha,” and you add an “s” to make it masculine (because Peter was male): thus “Kephas.” But the word to which “Kepha” actually translates is “Petra.” But “Petra” is feminine, and Peter wasn’t. So you change the ending from “-a” to “-os” to reflect his masculinity. Thus “Petros.”

To reiterate, though, Jesus’ actual words were “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Kepha; and upon this kepha I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (There was no upper-case v. lower-case issue at the time; that came from the printing press).

Moreover, consider what Simon was called once Jesus renamed him. Paul repeatedly called Simon, not “Pebble” or “Rock” but “Kephas” or “Cephas” (the Anglicized spelling).

The Bible reflects that everyone understood Simon to have been renamed Kephas/Cephas by Jesus Himself. And everyone understood it that way until some people came along fifteen centuries later and thought they knew better.

Beautiful exposition.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Great info in this thread. However, I like the “wobbly rock” theory, even if its not accurate. Peter was a wobbly rock, yet Christ chose him. Who freed the Israelites from slavery but a man who was a terrible public speaker? Who defeated Goliath, but a shepherd boy? Who would be the savior king to subjugate all nations, but a carpenters son from Nazareth? Who would be the foundation for the universal church that would stand for all time, that which hell itself would not be able to overcome? A wobbly rock, whose faith was shaken at the first real sign of trouble. A wobbly rock, redeemed.

I think the explanation a few posts above mine hit the nail on the head in terms of the languages used and what the words mean, but I like my theory as well. God speaks all languages, and even this makes sense to me!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

By telling him it isn’t true.

The Petra/Petros controversy only works if you choose the right dialects of Greek. Moreover, Jesus didn’t say “Petra” or “Petros.” He said “Kephas” (or “Cephas,” depending on your transliteration). The Aramaic word “Kepha” means “Rock.” Spell the Aramaic “Kepha” in Greek lettering and you get “Kepha,” and you add an “s” to make it masculine (because Peter was male): thus “Kephas.” But the word to which “Kepha” actually translates is “Petra.” But “Petra” is feminine, and Peter wasn’t. So you change the ending from “-a” to “-os” to reflect his masculinity. Thus “Petros.”

To reiterate, though, Jesus’ actual words were “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Kepha; and upon this kepha I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (There was no upper-case v. lower-case issue at the time; that came from the printing press).

Moreover, consider what Simon was called once Jesus renamed him. Paul repeatedly called Simon, not “Pebble” or “Rock” but “Kephas” or “Cephas” (the Anglicized spelling).

The Bible reflects that everyone understood Simon to have been renamed Kephas/Cephas by Jesus Himself. And everyone understood it that way until some people came along fifteen centuries later and thought they knew better.

I’m curious, did you take language classes to learn that, or did you find it online somewhere? I ask because I’m very interested in being able to havea fuller understanding of the Bible by having a fuller understanding of the language in which it was written.

 

[Godfollower]

I’m curious, did you take language classes to learn that, or did you find it online somewhere? I ask because I’m very interested in being able to havea fuller understanding of the Bible by having a fuller understanding of the language in which it was written.

Both. I’ve studied Latin and Greek, but I’m not good enough to “wing it” on the fly. I need to double-check my memories when the issues come up.

I highly recommend taking a Latin class and a Greek class to help with Bible studies. Catholic theology schools usually offer such classes; or local universities usually run them every now and then.

One thing to consider: experience teaches that Protestant apologists often don’t actually know what any of the words mean; they just repeat what they were told in their churches. So, if you’ve actually studied the language and understand how it works, you’re immunized against their assertions and better able to articulate your beliefs.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Both. I’ve studied Latin and Greek, but I’m not good enough to “wing it” on the fly. I need to double-check my memories when the issues come up.

I highly recommend taking a Latin class and a Greek class to help with Bible studies. Catholic theology schools usually offer such classes; or local universities usually run them every now and then.

One thing to consider: experience teaches that Protestant apologists often don’t actually know what any of the words mean; they just repeat what they were told in their churches. So, if you’ve actually studied the language and understand how it works, you’re immunized against their assertions and better able to articulate your beliefs.

Alright, thank you. I’ll have to look into that.

 

[KP3243]

Pretty sure anytime you use petro in geo sciences it usually refers to a rock.

 

[Bakmoon]

I am having a discussion with a family member about Peter being the rock of the Church. This is what he says:
In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus calls Simon “Peter” which, in Greek, is “petros” and is a small, wobbly stone. And then He says, “and upon this Rock (in Greek “Petra” which is a Solid, Massive and Firm Rock. And, it refers to Jesus Himself) I will build My Church…” It is upon Himself that the Lord builds His Church. A petros is only a small and weak stone and is by no stretch strong enough or even big enough to have something as large and “heavy” as the Church built upon it. Jesus was saying that "you, Peter, are a brick in the Building called My Church and you, along with the other Apostles and Believers are stacked and built upon Me, the Solid Foundation of the Church.

How do I refute this?

If there were a change in meaning in the Greek, Jesus wouldn’t have used the word “and”, but the word “but” because the two clauses contrast each other. It sounds silly to use the word “and” while using the two words with different meanings.

 

[rfournier103]

I am having a discussion with a family member about Peter being the rock of the Church. This is what he says:
In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus calls Simon “Peter” which, in Greek, is “petros” and is a small, wobbly stone. And then He says, “and upon this Rock (in Greek “Petra” which is a Solid, Massive and Firm Rock. And, it refers to Jesus Himself) I will build My Church…” It is upon Himself that the Lord builds His Church. A petros is only a small and weak stone and is by no stretch strong enough or even big enough to have something as large and “heavy” as the Church built upon it. Jesus was saying that "you, Peter, are a brick in the Building called My Church and you, along with the other Apostles and Believers are stacked and built upon Me, the Solid Foundation of the Church.

How do I refute this?

By telling him it isn’t true.

The Petra/Petros controversy only works if you choose the right dialects of Greek. Moreover, Jesus didn’t say “Petra” or “Petros.” He said “Kephas” (or “Cephas,” depending on your transliteration). The Aramaic word “Kepha” means “Rock.” Spell the Aramaic “Kepha” in Greek lettering and you get “Kepha,” and you add an “s” to make it masculine (because Peter was male): thus “Kephas.” But the word to which “Kepha” actually translates is “Petra.” But “Petra” is feminine, and Peter wasn’t. So you change the ending from “-a” to “-os” to reflect his masculinity. Thus “Petros.”

To reiterate, though, Jesus’ actual words were “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Kepha; and upon this kepha I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (There was no upper-case v. lower-case issue at the time; that came from the printing press).

Moreover, consider what Simon was called once Jesus renamed him. Paul repeatedly called Simon, not “Pebble” or “Rock” but “Kephas” or “Cephas” (the Anglicized spelling).

The Bible reflects that everyone understood Simon to have been renamed Kephas/Cephas by Jesus Himself. And everyone understood it that way until some people came along fifteen centuries later and thought they knew better.

I love it!!! This is one of the many sad divisions we Christians face. I would highly reccomend John Salza’s “Biblical Basis for the Papacy”. It takes on most of the standard objections and explains them away.

PS: Great job, Godfollower!