Peter as the Rock

[ChrisB103]

I was discussing the Papacy with a Protestant friend, and the conversation went through the predictable stages. First, I explained Mt 16:18-19. Then, he used the argument that Petros and petra have different meanings, so it contrasts Peter (little rock) from Christ (the big rock). I explained to him that the meaning of the two words was the same in Koine Greek, which was the dialect around in Christ’s time. I added in that it would make no sense for Jesus to 1) call Peter blessed, and then 2) belittle him, and then finally 3)give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It took him a few days to get back to me, and I thought I was finally getting through to him. He talked to a friend of his who was a professor of ancient Greek, and he said the following:

“Petra is the femine noun, and this is what the debate stands around. It is the huge rock, and the foundation that Christ wanted to build his church on. According to Dr. Hall, feminine nouns in Greek refer to either a feminine object or person, or an abstract idea. Now because we know that Peter is not a feminine noun, and we also know that Jesus is not referring to a literal rock, this noun is abstract. It is referring to an abstract idea or thought of some sort. Dr. Hall said that the foundation of Christ church,and the rock in which he was going to build it on, was Peter’s confession of faith. A believers foundation is his confession of faith, the point of salvation; and this is exactly how Christ was going to build his church, with this foundation.”

He also said that in Mt 16:19 the Greek word for “you” is “soy”, which is the plural form of “you”. I don’t know Greek, so who can help me out with where these explanations fall short?

So far, the points I’m considering making are:

1. Why would Jesus rename Simon “Rock” if he was not really the rock, but just his profession of faith?
2. Jesus would have spoken this in Aramaic, and the original text of Matthew was likely Aramaic, and it would do away with the supposed gender issue of the nouns.

Let me know what you all think, especially if you’re familiar with Greek.

God bless,
Chris

 

[workingman]

Wekk since Christ spoke in Aramaic I guess I would be leaning at option 2 at this point. The word Kepha (Rock) only has one meaning only. Like you said no gender issue. The whole gender issue in greek though is bunk and has been refuted I just don’t remember where I saw it.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What you should ask your protestant friend is what does he think the significance is of Christ changing Simon’s name to another which for a Jew was traditionally reserved for God alone?

 

[campeador]

Here’s a good place to start:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

 

[Jimmy_B]

I was discussing the Papacy with a Protestant friend, and the conversation went through the predictable stages. First, I explained Mt 16:18-19. Then, he used the argument that Petros and petra have different meanings, so it contrasts Peter (little rock) from Christ (the big rock). I explained to him that the meaning of the two words was the same in Koine Greek, which was the dialect around in Christ’s time. I added in that it would make no sense for Jesus to 1) call Peter blessed, and then 2) belittle him, and then finally 3)give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It took him a few days to get back to me, and I thought I was finally getting through to him. He talked to a friend of his who was a professor of ancient Greek, and he said the following:

“Petra is the femine noun, and this is what the debate stands around. It is the huge rock, and the foundation that Christ wanted to build his church on. According to Dr. Hall, feminine nouns in Greek refer to either a feminine object or person, or an abstract idea. Now because we know that Peter is not a feminine noun, and we also know that Jesus is not referring to a literal rock, this noun is abstract. It is referring to an abstract idea or thought of some sort. Dr. Hall said that the foundation of Christ church,and the rock in which he was going to build it on, was Peter’s confession of faith. A believers foundation is his confession of faith, the point of salvation; and this is exactly how Christ was going to build his church, with this foundation.”

He also said that in Mt 16:19 the Greek word for “you” is “soy”, which is the plural form of “you”. I don’t know Greek, so who can help me out with where these explanations fall short?

So far, the points I’m considering making are:

1. Why would Jesus rename Simon “Rock” if he was not really the rock, but just his profession of faith?
2. Jesus would have spoken this in Aramaic, and the original text of Matthew was likely Aramaic, and it would do away with the supposed gender issue of the nouns.

Let me know what you all think, especially if you’re familiar with Greek.

God bless,
Chris

I think this goes beyond the translation. Protestants who argue this point are usually repeating a Protestant talking point and are not people who can actually translate these languages. Take this from a father of two linguists. This type of thing goes more towards the rejection of Papal Authority, Apostolic Succession and Catholicism in general , than is does with any particular translation.

The only reason why this argument still resonates with some Protestants today, I believe is because Protestants also reject “traditions”, or early Christian history.

• The Construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome began in 1506 A.D.
• Protestant Reformation began in 1517 A.D.
• The King James Bible (KJV), or Protestant Bible wasn’t completed until 1611
• The Western Canon wasn’t completed or closed until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

If St. Peter wasn’t the “Rock”, then why did the early Christians build the largest Christian church over his grave? This occurred before the Protestant Reformation and before the complete formation of the Bible?

Aren’t time-lines great?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think this goes beyond the translation. Protestants who argue this point are usually repeating a Protestant talking point and are not people who can actually translate these languages. Take this from a father of two linguists. This type of thing goes more towards the rejection of Papal Authority, Apostolic Succession and Catholicism in general , than is does with any particular translation.

The only reason why this argument still resonates with some Protestants today, I believe is because Protestants also reject “traditions”, or early Christian history.

• The Construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome began in 1506 A.D.
• Protestant Reformation began in 1517 A.D.
• The King James Bible (KJV), or Protestant Bible wasn’t completed until 1611
• The Western Canon wasn’t completed or closed until the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

If St. Peter wasn’t the “Rock”, then why did the early Christians build the largest Christian church over his grave? This occurred before the Protestant Reformation and before the complete formation of the Bible?

Aren’t time-lines great?

I think I’ll go with the Catholic translation on this one… You know, the first Christian Church and the Church who gave us the Bible in the first place… The Catholic Bible that contained this verse -
**
*"*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

([Matthew 16:18 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=16))
.

 

[jbeck43]

Mr. Hall’s understanding is just plain wrong, and perhaps a bit disingenuous as well. In the Greek, the noun for rock, “petra” is changed when applied to Simon. His name becomes “petros”. This is simply to accommodate Simon’s gender, since petra in greek, is a feminine noun. This is common in many languages, such as Spanish (i.e. “los angeles” or “la bamba”).

Also, note the play on words in Matthew–Simon calls Jesus, “Christ,” and Jesus in turn calls Simon, rock, or “Petros”. Simon makes a declaration about the person of Jesus, and Jesus thus makes a declaration about the person of Simon in return. Also the linking words in Greek are used the same way as in english. For instance, if Jesus was referring only to Simon’s faith, or as many Protestant’s assert, to Himself in the verses in Matt. 16, Jesus would have said, “you are petros, but upon this [other] rock, I will build my Church.” But what he actually says is, “you are petros, and upon this [same] rock I will build my church.” Christ is calling Peter the rock on which He will build His Church.

The use of the the Greek word “soi,” in referring to a plural “you” is also incorrect. If you look at the King James version of the verse (the favored translation for protestants), “soi” is translated as Thee, which is the singular form of the word you, rendered in arcane (but more precise) english (If Christ meant, all of you, or “you all,” as Texans would say, He would have used the word, Ye–as in “Ye are Peter.”) The word “thee” is used in the Douay Rheims and all protestant bibles that use the arcane but more precise english terms for the word, “you”.

Mr. Hall said that the word “Peter” had a nebulous meaning. But this is simply incorrect given the context. The original greek scripture would not have transliterated the word petra to petros if the meaning of the word or who it was referring to was unclear. Christ meant to use it to not only name Simon Peter, but also describe the role that he would play in His Church. The following verses in Matthew say, “and I will give you the keys of the kingdom. What you bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven. What you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” Christ here was making reference to chapter 22 of Isiah. There, the grand overseer of the house of David is described as having the “key to the kingdom” and “what he shall shut, none shall open. And what he shall open, none shall shut.” Any first century Jew would know exactly what Christ was calling Simon Peter to. He was calling him to be the new overseer of the new house of the son of David.

 

[pritchard85]

The only reason why this argument still resonates with some Protestants today, I believe is because Protestants also reject “traditions”, or early Christian history.

I’d say that your response is seriously flawed in that not all Protestants reject tradition and the Early Church. I don’t reject the practices that we have today that are ajoined with the Church of the Apostles (tradition). We also hold to Apostolic Succession and the authority that Jesus gave ALL his Apostles that can easily be shown in the Book of Acts. What we protest is the notion that Jesus gave full supreme authority to Peter alone and that this authority has led to the unbiblical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic church has today.

 

[ChrisB103]

Does anyone here happen to know Greek so that I can directly address his comments on the gender issue of Petros/petra (which seems obviously bunk from the context alone) and then also the Greek of “soi” so that I can prove that the keys were given to Peter alone?

As of now, I’m planning on adding in that the Early Church Fathers spoke Greek and understood the culture and context of the verse better than we can hope to today, and that is a strong testimony to the true meaning.

Also, as a side question: Since Matthew was likely written in Aramaic, does that mean that only the Aramaic original copy can be said to be inerrant? Or would the Greek copy that was used in the New Testament also definitely be inerrant? My point isn’t that the Greek version has errors, but simply that it’s ideal to look at the original language to understand the meaning best.

Thanks,
Chris**

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’d say that your response is seriously flawed in that not all Protestants reject tradition and the Early Church. I don’t reject the practices that we have today that are ajoined with the Church of the Apostles (tradition). We also hold to Apostolic Succession and the authority that Jesus gave ALL his Apostles that can easily be shown in the Book of Acts. What we protest is the notion that Jesus gave full supreme authority to Peter alone and that this authority has led to the unbiblical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic church has today.

 

[Nicea325]

I’d say that your response is seriously flawed in that not all Protestants reject tradition and the Early Church. I don’t reject the practices that we have today that are ajoined with the Church of the Apostles (tradition). We also hold to Apostolic Succession and the authority that Jesus gave ALL his Apostles that can easily be shown in the Book of Acts. What we protest is the notion that Jesus gave full supreme authority to Peter alone and that this authority has led to the unbiblical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic church has today.

Exactly…you protest a "notion,"not an early church tradition and belief. If the belief of Peter not being the Head and Prince Apostle should easily have been displayed throughout the centuries. Where are the protests stating Peter was not the Head?

As for unbibical? Show me where Jesus authorized anyone to found their own church and teaching conflicting beliefs? That is what I have been waiting for years to see the biblical proof of such a belief?

As for unbiblical beliefs and practices on Peter? Here a few verses out of 50 New Testament verses which show the ‘primacy’ of St. Peter…

Go ahead and refute the Word of God:

• Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see 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 example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (see, for example, Gal 1:18-19; 2:7-8). Taken in context, Paul is in Jerusalem (2:1), the See of James. Protocol, even to this day is for the Bishop of the diocese to be mentioned first before any visitor is mentioned, even for the Pope. Saint Paul is merely following proper protocol in vs 2:9.
• Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
  Mt 16:18).
• Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, 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 Pt 5:2).
• Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith fail not” (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 (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
• Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
  (Mt 17:24-27).
• Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
• Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
• Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
• Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
  (Acts 1:15-22).
• Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
• Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the Gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
• Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
• Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
  (Acts 5:2-11).
• Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
• Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
• Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
• Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
• Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
• Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age
  (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
• The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter “without ceasing” when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
• Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
• Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles
  (1 Cor 15:4-5).
• Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
  1 Cor 9:5).
• Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
  (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
• Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples
  (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
• Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
• Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
• Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
  (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).
  John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

 

[campeador]

Does anyone here happen to know Greek so that I can directly address his comments on the gender issue of Petros/petra (which seems obviously bunk from the context alone) and then also the Greek of “soi” so that I can prove that the keys were given to Peter alone?

Thanks,
Chris

From the link I provided above:

Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use *kepha *in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

 

[pritchard85]

As for unbibical? Show me where Jesus authorized anyone to found their own church and teaching conflicting beliefs? That is what I have been waiting for years to see the biblical proof of such a belief?

I think you are looking for something here that nobody is proclaiming. I do not belong to a church founded upon something different than what Jesus taught his Apostles. It seems to me that you are trying to paint a picture that really has no bearing to anything relevant.

As for unbiblical beliefs and practices on Peter? Here a few verses out of 50 New Testament verses which show the ‘primacy’ of St. Peter…

Go ahead and refute the Word of God:

There is no refutation to the word of God for anyone who calls themselves a Christian. There IS however plenty of refutation to how one interprets Scripture which Paul also warns of private interpretation of Scripture. It looks alot to me like you went to great lengths to put Peter ahead in almost all of those passages. The whole problem is that when we look at the Scripture in its entirety, we see that Peter was in a leadership role especially in Acts but he was never proven to be supreme by Scripture. Not ever. this is precisely the root problem of your church. Paul opposed Peter to his face on a matter of faith and morals. Jesus only a couple sentences after Peter’s confession told Peter, “get behind me satan”. The biggest thing which is very problematic is that Paul never once mentioned Peter in Romans. Not once. This was also right about the time when Peter was martyerd in Rome. Very problematic to the supremacy argument.

 

[ChrisB103]

There is no refutation to the word of God for anyone who calls themselves a Christian. There IS however plenty of refutation to how one interprets Scripture which Paul also warns of private interpretation of Scripture. It looks alot to me like you went to great lengths to put Peter ahead in almost all of those passages. The whole problem is that when we look at the Scripture in its entirety, we see that Peter was in a leadership role especially in Acts but he was never proven to be supreme by Scripture. Not ever. this is precisely the root problem of your church. Paul opposed Peter to his face on a matter of faith and morals. Jesus only a couple sentences after Peter’s confession told Peter, “get behind me satan”. The biggest thing which is very problematic is that Paul never once mentioned Peter in Romans. Not once. This was also right about the time when Peter was martyerd in Rome. Very problematic to the supremacy argument.

The Bible put him ahead, and we follow its commands since they come from God. So you say you accept Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession but deny that Peter had a special/supreme role (a role that which you claim has led to great untruths taught in Catholicism). What doctrines come from the Successor of St. Peter acting by himself? According to what I know, there are only two (someone please correct me if I’m wrong): Pope Pius IX’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950. In both of these cases, the Pope was not teaching something new. Rather, he was confirming and clarifying something that the Church had already believed as part of God’s revelation.

In light of this, I’m not sure how you can claim that having a supreme bishop has caused such awful theological results.

 

[ChrisB103]

From the link I provided above:

Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use *kepha *in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

Thanks, Campeador. I used this article extensively when I explained to him why Petros and petra both refer to Peter himself. His claim (via a professor of ancient Greek) was that petra, as a feminine noun, must refer to a feminine object or person, or an abstract idea. Basically, I’m curious if this is actually true of Greek.

In addition, I was trying to decide if petra referring to something abstract necessarily would mean that the Catholic interpretation was wrong (don’t get me wrong, I know the Catholic interpretation is correct). Jesus referring to Peter as “the Rock” is a metaphor, because Peter is not physically a rock. A metaphor is abstract, so I’m not even sure that what he proposed (given that it is actually the truth about Greek) would necessarily rule out the Catholic interpretation. Your thoughts, all?

 

[jbeck43]

The whole problem is that when we look at the Scripture in its entirety, we see that Peter was in a leadership role especially in Acts but he was never proven to be supreme by Scripture.

Last I checked, Acts was part of Scripture, and if Peter held a leadership role there, then he indeed held it in Scripture.

There IS however plenty of refutation to how one interprets Scripture which Paul also warns of private interpretation of Scripture.

Isn’t this what you’re doing? Nicea325 provided plenty of information on the primacy of Peter, none of which was factually disproven by you, other than to say he read into scripture Peter’s leadership. Which of these facts are incorrect? Truth is, most prominent Protestant theologians, who have no desire to convert to the Catholic Church, like D.A. Carson have conceded Peter’s primacy in the early Church. They simply do not accept that it was an office conferred on others after Peter’s death.

The biggest thing which is very problematic is that Paul never once mentioned Peter in Romans. Not once. This was also right about the time when Peter was martyerd in Rome. Very problematic to the supremacy argument.

Not at all. If you’re at all familiar with the early Church history, you would know that Rome was a not hospitable place for early Christians. It would not have been advantageous for Paul to refer to Peter being in Rome only to have this information fall into the wrong hands. It would almost certainly have meant a death sentence. It did for Paul. It also did other early Christians like Ignatius of Antioch (who was Martyred in the Colloseum). Early Christians instead used code words to refer to specific places, and Rome was called “Babylon” to keep their location a secret among themselves. You can even see evidence for this in Scripture itself in 1Pet 5:13, where Peter sends greetings “from Babylon,” with his son Mark (the Mark referred to in this passage is not his biological son, but is his spiritual son, Mark the Evangelist, no less–which provides an interesting aside, in that if Mark is not a son by birth, but by the spirit, then that would make Peter his spiritual father, which is why we call Roman Catholic priests father today. Paul calls onesimus a son as well in the book of Philemon). So if you are unfamiliar with sources outside Scripture, then you’re handicapped as to what is inside Scripture also. The Bible is a Catholic book, through and through. The new testament canon was affirmed by the particular councils of Carthage and Hippo in 392 and 396, along with Rome in 282. It was later affirmed by the general council at Trent in the 16th century. It’s the same canon used by Protestants today. So when refuting the Scriptures with Catholics, although particular Catholics may not know the ins and outs of proper exegesis, please be aware that if it werent for the Catholic Church, persons like you wouldn’t know what to argue about.

 

[vsedriver]

I’d say that your response is seriously flawed in that not all Protestants reject tradition and the Early Church. I don’t reject the practices that we have today that are ajoined with the Church of the Apostles (tradition). We also hold to Apostolic Succession and the authority that Jesus gave ALL his Apostles that can easily be shown in the Book of Acts. What we protest is the notion that Jesus gave full supreme authority to Peter alone and that this authority has led to the unbiblical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic church has today.

Jesus gave full supreme authority to Peter when he gave him the keys to heaven. Who else is supreme in the King’s Kingdom than his Chief Steward who holds all the keys?

the fault of modern day American Christians is that they have difficulty understanding life under a king and how that type of government operated even though we have numerous examples in the OT.

 

[rinnie]

I was discussing the Papacy with a Protestant friend, and the conversation went through the predictable stages. First, I explained Mt 16:18-19. Then, he used the argument that Petros and petra have different meanings, so it contrasts Peter (little rock) from Christ (the big rock). I explained to him that the meaning of the two words was the same in Koine Greek, which was the dialect around in Christ’s time. I added in that it would make no sense for Jesus to 1) call Peter blessed, and then 2) belittle him, and then finally 3)give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It took him a few days to get back to me, and I thought I was finally getting through to him. He talked to a friend of his who was a professor of ancient Greek, and he said the following:

“Petra is the femine noun, and this is what the debate stands around. It is the huge rock, and the foundation that Christ wanted to build his church on. According to Dr. Hall, feminine nouns in Greek refer to either a feminine object or person, or an abstract idea. Now because we know that Peter is not a feminine noun, and we also know that Jesus is not referring to a literal rock, this noun is abstract. It is referring to an abstract idea or thought of some sort. Dr. Hall said that the foundation of Christ church,and the rock in which he was going to build it on, was Peter’s confession of faith. A believers foundation is his confession of faith, the point of salvation; and this is exactly how Christ was going to build his church, with this foundation.”

He also said that in Mt 16:19 the Greek word for “you” is “soy”, which is the plural form of “you”. I don’t know Greek, so who can help me out with where these explanations fall short?

So far, the points I’m considering making are:

1. Why would Jesus rename Simon “Rock” if he was not really the rock, but just his profession of faith?
2. Jesus would have spoken this in Aramaic, and the original text of Matthew was likely Aramaic, and it would do away with the supposed gender issue of the nouns.

Let me know what you all think, especially if you’re familiar with Greek.

God bless,
Chris

The Point is as you stated. When Jesus spoke the Gospel of Matthew was the ORIGINAL Aramaic to Greek.

Now lets take this a step further, agreed some of the effect of Christs play on words were lost when he statement was TRANSLATED from Aramanic into Greek.

But here is the kicker that many people MISS. IN ENGLISH just like Aramaic you read. You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.

There you go, nothing is lost, it is crystal clear actually.

 

[Nicea325]

I think you are looking for something here that nobody is proclaiming.

On the contrary,it is you who is proclaiming that the early church did not believe in the primacy of Peter,thus the burden is on you to show us otherwise.

I do not belong to a church founded upon something different than what Jesus taught his Apostles. It seems to me that you are trying to paint a picture that really has no bearing to anything relevant.

I am sorry,but I can bet all of my retirement money you belong to a church founded by a man/woman centuries later. Second,if you belong to a church that does not teach anything different that what Jesus taught the Apostles,then why are you at a man-made church? Why even create thousands upon thousands of different denominations? If many are claiming the same as you?

There is no refutation to the word of God for anyone who calls themselves a Christian.

Well apparently you question it or else you would not believe what you do.

There IS however plenty of refutation to how one interprets Scripture which Paul also warns of private interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly! Which lead has led to thousands of teachings and mass chaos and confusion. Case in point: Baptism. It is necessary or no it is no necessary. Adult baptism versus infant baptism. I can go on and on.

It looks alot to me like you went to great lengths to put Peter ahead in almost all of those passages.

Great lengths? Why? It is all there in the NT. I am merely parroting what the NT has provided and the early church.

The whole problem is that when we look at the Scripture in its entirety, we see that Peter was in a leadership role especially in Acts but he was never proven to be supreme by Scripture. Not ever.

I beg your pardon? I never said supreme,but PRIMACY. Now if 50 NT verses is NOT ample evidence to see who clearly had a primacy is clear you are in denial. What I provided is out of more than one book or epistle but the entirety of Scripture.

this is precisely the root problem of your church.

Wrong! It is the clear problem of your belief,church and the majority of Protestanism. Protestanism is a novelty to Christianity,whether you care to admit or not.Protestanism founding root is based on…ME! Geee…do you think the approach has led to thousands of denominations? What I believe…what I say it is.Now if you want to sit there deny Protestanism is divided and continues to divide,then I do not know what to tell you.

Paul opposed Peter to his face on a matter of faith and morals.

Tell me how you equate a morals/faith issue with authority? Paul questioned Peter’s authority? Really? This is where you are in error as many who follow your suit.

Jesus only a couple sentences after Peter’s confession told Peter, “get behind me satan”.

Yeah…and? Is that verse in reference to authority and primacy?

The biggest thing which is very problematic is that Paul never once mentioned Peter in Romans. Not once.

Problematic? For you! Who wrote the Bible saying everything about everyone has to be mentioned? And does Paul always mention the exact where abouts of all the other 11 Apostles? Since when did the Bible also become a detailed diary or log of everyone’s movements? Problematic for you,but not the authors of the NT,because dates and locations was not the message.

This was also right about the time when Peter was martyerd in Rome. Very problematic to the supremacy argument

Problematic? Was JFK’s murder very problematic to the “office” of the President? Did it bring in question his role and duties?

 

[pritchard85]

Last I checked, Acts was part of Scripture, and if Peter held a leadership role there, then he indeed held it in Scripture.

I didn’t say anything close to what you are implying here. Of course Acts is Scripture. i said that Peter was never shown to be supreme in Acts or anywhere in Scripture. If you claim that he was, then I would like for you to show me where.

Not at all. If you’re at all familiar with the early Church history, you would know that Rome was a not hospitable place for early Christians. It would not have been advantageous for Paul to refer to Peter being in Rome only to have this information fall into the wrong hands. It would almost certainly have meant a death sentence. It did for Paul. It also did other early Christians like Ignatius of Antioch (who was Martyred in the Colloseum). Early Christians instead used code words to refer to specific places, and Rome was called “Babylon” to keep their location a secret among themselves. You can even see evidence for this in Scripture itself in 1Pet 5:13, where Peter sends greetings “from Babylon,” with his son Mark (the Mark referred to in this passage is not his biological son, but is his spiritual son, Mark the Evangelist, no less–which provides an interesting aside, in that if Mark is not a son by birth, but by the spirit, then that would make Peter his spiritual father, which is why we call Roman Catholic priests father today. Paul calls onesimus a son as well in the book of Philemon). So if you are unfamiliar with sources outside Scripture, then you’re handicapped as to what is inside Scripture also. The Bible is a Catholic book, through and through. The new testament canon was affirmed by the particular councils of Carthage and Hippo in 392 and 396, along with Rome in 282. It was later affirmed by the general council at Trent in the 16th century. It’s the same canon used by Protestants today. So when refuting the Scriptures with Catholics, although particular Catholics may not know the ins and outs of proper exegesis, please be aware that if it werent for the Catholic Church, persons like you wouldn’t know what to argue about.

Ya know, it makes me laugh when I hear another explanation why the Scriptures don’t mean what they say or how we absolutely have no correct way or any idea of what Scripture says outside of your magisterium. Of all the Catholics I have ever spoken with on this subject over many many years, this is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely close to this. I don’t accept it. Sorry. If Peter was everything your church claims, then he would have been spoken of in Scripture in these ways and he simply was not. You cannot fill the void there that clearly exists. Paul never eluded to Peter being supreme in any of his Epistles. Not once. At some point here you have to admit that this isn’t an argument that can be supported by Scripture.

The Bible is also not a Catholic book. It was compiled by the Early Church, East and West together. In fact look at where those councils ended up. Carthage and Hippo both became part of the Orthodox church. So, if we wanted to be technical here, we could say that the Bible is an Orthodox book, but then we have another problem. Your canon isn’t the same as the Orthodox canon. Why?? There’s just too many voids to cover to make the Catholic argument to work.