Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[Panis_Angelicas]

This post was on the “Worst Threat to the Church” thread, but really needs to be a thread all by itself, imho.

I did not post this, but am pasting it here for correction and clarification, so as not to hijack the other thread.

Rev.3:8-9I know thy works, signifies that the Lord sees all their interiors and exteriors at once. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, signifies that heaven has been opened to those who are in truths derived out of good from the Lord. And no one is able to shut it, signifies that hell does not prevail against them. Because thou hast a little power, signifies because they know that of themselves they are powerless. And hast observed My Word, signifies because they are living in accordance with the precepts of the Lord in His Word. And hast not denied My Name, signifies that they are in the worship of the Lord.

1. And I will make (dabo) those of the synagogue of Satan, signifies those who are in doctrine are in untruths. Declaring themselves to be Jews, and are not, but do lie, signifies who say that the Church is with them, and yet it is not. Behold I will make them to come and worship at thy feet, signifies that many who are in doctrine are in untruths are going to receive the truths of the New Church. And to know that I have chosen thee, signifies that they are going to see that they are loved and received into heaven by the Lord.

On this rock shall I build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Matt. 16:18.

The Lord said those words after Peter had made the statement that Christ was the Son of the living God (Matt.16:16).

This is the truth which is meant by rock.For a rock throughout the Word means the Lord in respect to Divine truth. Peter means, truth from good.

Harry

 

[Apologia100]

No, Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon bar Jonah to Kephas at the moment they met. Kephas is Aramaic for Rock. John 1:40-42 read like this:

Andrew, the brother of Simon, was one of the first two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah.” Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah, you will be called Kephas (Rock).”

Jesus CHANGES Simon’s name to Rock, which in Aramaic is Kephas and in Koine Greek is Petros (the only way to make the word petra (rock) masculine), which translates to Peter in English.

So in Matthew 16:18, Jesus is saying “You are Rock, and upon this Rock I build my church.” If you understand the language, it is the only sensical to translate the passage. Jesus is saying that he is building His church on the authority of Peter. You have to twist and manipulate or come up with erroneous alternative translations to make this statement say anything other than that.

 

[copland]

Jesus, in Matthew starts off by telling Simon he is blessed, and then tells him why he is blessed. And in the Greek language you will learn that it is very sophisticated and precise. It has cases, numbers, and genders with many of its words, and the word “rock” in Greek has them. Let me show you what I am talking about.

rock in Greek in the masculine form is Petrov

the ending sigma on the end makes it masculine, and that makes sense because Jesus is refering to Simon who is a man. But then where the Greek language has different endings due to it’s position in the sentence and it’s function, here the ending changes from masculine to feminine and the gender is changed and into petra.

The changes are only in the genders of the Greek word but the meaning is the same. A truly literal translation would simply say, “I also say to you that you are rock and upon this rock I will build My church;”

So what we have here is Jesus telling Peter that he is the rock upon He will build His church. And that means Peter was the first Pope.

 

[Mike_C]

A lot of people will use this to disprove Peter as being the first Pope, or a leader of the early Church. But why is Peter’s name first in the list of the Apostles? Wouldn’t it be Andrew since he is the first called?

 

[Dr.Colossus]

copland:

Jesus, in Matthew starts off by telling Simon he is blessed, and then tells him why he is blessed. And in the Greek language you will learn that it is very sophisticated and precise. It has cases, numbers, and genders with many of its words, and the word “rock” in Greek has them. Let me show you what I am talking about.

rock in Greek in the masculine form is Petrov

the ending sigma on the end makes it masculine, and that makes sense because Jesus is refering to Simon who is a man. But then where the Greek language has different endings due to it’s position in the sentence and it’s function, here the ending changes from masculine to feminine and the gender is changed and into petra.

The changes are only in the genders of the Greek word but the meaning is the same. A truly literal translation would simply say, “I also say to you that you are rock and upon this rock I will build My church;”

So what we have here is Jesus telling Peter that he is the rock upon He will build His church. And that means Peter was the first Pope.

Additionally, Christ would not have said this in Greek, but in Aramaic which was later translated into Greek. In Aramaic, the word ‘rock’ is kephas, and has no gender. Therefore, it would have been very clear to the Apostles precisely what Christ meant. He called Peter “Rock”, the same Rock upon which Christ would build His Church.

 

[francisca]

Dr. Colossus:

Additionally, Christ would not have said this in Greek, but in Aramaic which was later translated into Greek. In Aramaic, the word ‘rock’ is kephas, and has no gender. Therefore, it would have been very clear to the Apostles precisely what Christ meant. He called Peter “Rock”, the same Rock upon which Christ would build His Church.

The problem is : our New Testament is not written in Aramaic.

The gospel original text is in GREEK. So most likely the word “Cephas” is translation from “PetroV”, not the other way round.

God Bless U.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Isn’t it true that there ARE no “original manuscripts” of the gospels, but only manuscript COPIES? And, since the language of the peoples at the time was predominantly Greek, Koine Greek, doesn’t it make sense that a manuscript would be in Greek? Since the followers of Jesus were evangelizing to the nations?

 

[Dr.Colossus]

francisca:

The problem is : our New Testament is not written in Aramaic.

The gospel original text is in GREEK. So most likely the word “Cephas” is translation from “PetroV”, not the other way round.

God Bless U.

My point was that because Christ spoke Aramaic, he would have said these words in that language, and thus the Apostles would have understood what He meant. Later, when the New Testament was written, it was written in Greek for a Greek audience. The fact that the Apostles understood Christ to be referring to Peter as the rock can be backed up by references in the New Testament (it’s always “Peter and the Apostles”, and Peter is always listed first), appeals to His authority (Paul went to Peter after his conversion), and the fast adoption of Peter’s successors as the leaders of the Church.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

It’s interesting to see that at least some protestant bible scholars agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject! catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

Someone really has to go through some acrobatic thinking to come up with “Divine Revelation” being the “Rock,” imho, but I did want to hear all of the historical and linguistic defenses.

Thank you!

Pax Christi. <><

 

[bernmutt]

Panis Angelicas:

It’s interesting to see that at least some protestant bible scholars agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject! catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php

Someone really has to go through some acrobatic thinking to come up with “Divine Revelation” being the “Rock,” imho, but I did want to hear all of the historical and linguistic defenses.

Thank you!

Pax Christi. <><

I think Peter could be a “rock,” but that it’s unreasonable to think that he’s the first Pope-- at least as a Pope as we understand the Pope today or through history. For example, I can’t imagine Peter ruling over the other Churches, or thinking he can or should declare infallible statements, like the Pope did in 1950 in infallibly declaring the Assumption of Mary.

…Bernie
www.FreeGoodNews.com

 

[John_Henry]

francisca:

The problem is : our New Testament is not written in Aramaic.

The gospel original text is in GREEK. So most likely the word “Cephas” is translation from “PetroV”, not the other way round.

Two points. 1) If the gospel original were greek, that would only mean that the statement in question was a translation from the aramaic language used by Jesus. 2) Some of the Church Fathers make reference to Matthew’s gospel having been originally written in aramaic, subsequently translated into greek. Of course, this version has long since been lost.

In either case, Petra/Petros is most certainly a translation from aramaic.

God bless.

 

[John_Henry]

bernmutt:

I think Peter could be a “rock,” but that it’s unreasonable to think that he’s the first Pope-- at least as a Pope as we understand the Pope today or through history. For example, I can’t imagine Peter ruling over the other Churches, or thinking he can or should declare infallible statements, like the Pope did in 1950 in infallibly declaring the Assumption of Mary

When Catholics say Peter was the first pope, they mean that he was the one with power of the keys. The later popes succeeded to his position as Bishop of Rome, and thus inherited his keys. Nevertheless, we do not think that Peter used these keys in exactly the same manner as our current day pope might. There has been a legitimate development in the office of the Papacy, in response to the needs as they presented themselves.

Having said that, though, Peter’s role in the Council of Jerusalem, where the non-necessity of circumcision was defined, is very similar to the position that any other pope would take in defining a doctrine.

John Henry Newman speaks of this development, if you are interested. It can be found here: newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section3

 

[copland]

Dr. Colossus,

Additionally, Christ would not have said this in Greek, but in Aramaic which was later translated into Greek. In Aramaic, the word ‘rock’ is kephas, and has no gender. Therefore, it would have been very clear to the Apostles precisely what Christ meant. He called Peter “Rock”, the same Rock upon which Christ would build His Church.

You are exactly right. The ancient Syriac manuscripts Old Syriac and Peshitta manuscripts proves what you are describing. Syriac is Christian Aramaic.

Between all the evidence from the exegesis that comes from the Aramaic and Greek to prove that Jesus was saying that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16, you also have the Church Fathers who without a doubt supports that claim.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

bernmutt:

I think Peter could be a “rock,” but that it’s unreasonable to think that he’s the first Pope-- at least as a Pope as we understand the Pope today or through history. For example, I can’t imagine Peter ruling over the other Churches, or thinking he can or should declare infallible statements, like the Pope did in 1950 in infallibly declaring the Assumption of Mary.

…Bernie
www.FreeGoodNews.com

The Apostles “ruled over” the Churches, and they answered to Peter. The earliest Christian writings affirm this. And what’s this about Peter not thinking he can make infallible statements? Peter wrote at least 2 letters in the New Testament – letters that are included even in Protestant Bibles. If they’re in the Bible, then the statements are infallible, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[PhilVaz]

The summary statements on why Peter = this rock

Let’s summarize what all the Protestant scholars are saying in their commentaries on Matthew 16:18 –

(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;

(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);

(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;

(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;

(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;

(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;

(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;

(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;

(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;

(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;

(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;

(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).

Unfinished but here

Phil P

 

[SteveG]

you may want to check out this thread which is on the same topic. A lot of this has already been gone over and in greate detail…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8215

 

[bernmutt]

Dr. Colossus:

The Apostles “ruled over” the Churches, and they answered to Peter. The earliest Christian writings affirm this. And what’s this about Peter not thinking he can make infallible statements? Peter wrote at least 2 letters in the New Testament – letters that are included even in Protestant Bibles. If they’re in the Bible, then the statements are infallible, wouldn’t you agree?

Personally, I don’t like saying the Bible is infallible-- only God is (but the Bible is our Authority and the best that we have to go by; I believe it is inspired.). I understand the need for wanting it to be infallible, but that doesn’t make it so.

You say:
“The Apostles “ruled over” the Churches, and they answered to Peter. The earliest Christian writings affirm this.”

Can you give me an internet refernce for this, and send it to me at bernie_dehler@yahoo.com (I might not see it here, but post here to)? I bet any such reference is very vague and you are twisting it to mean what you want, or else it is a few hundred years past the time of Peter when people are trying to prove such a point.

…Bernie

 

[John_Henry]

bernmutt:

Can you give me an internet refernce for this, and send it to me at bernie_dehler@yahoo.com (I might not see it here, but post here to)? I bet any such reference is very vague and you are twisting it to mean what you want, or else it is a few hundred years past the time of Peter when people are trying to prove such a point.

Way to ask a question, and then poison the well.

In the context of the papacy, the ruling that is being spoken of is the power to bind and loose, especially regarding faith (doctrine) and morals. Matthew 18 records Christ’s giving the apostles the power to bind and loose, in the context of morals. As regards doctrine, Acts 15 shows the apostles and the people they had appointed gathered in council to settle a doctrinal dispute. Those are both examples of binding and loosing. Both examples of authority (the power to rule) given to and exercised by the apostles. Nothing vague about it. And not centuries after the events, but mere decades.

God bless.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Can you give me an internet refernce for this, and send it to me at bernie_dehler@yahoo.com (I might not see it here, but post here to)? I bet any such reference is very vague and you are twisting it to mean what you want, or else it is a few hundred years past the time of Peter when people are trying to prove such a point.

It seems you’ve already made up your mind about any sources I can give you. Be that as it may, I will find some of the sources and post them here, for the benefit of others who might actually want to look at them before making their decision.

 

[rfk]

“The Apostles “ruled over” the Churches, and they answered to Peter. The earliest Christian writings affirm this.”

Well, I don’t keep my email on this machine, and I am not going to waste my time emailing it.

But Pope St. Clement I wrote a reproving letter to the Corinthian Church in 96 AD. In this letter, Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say. It is also observed that he did not sign it as “Clement”, or “Bishop of Rome”. He signed it as the Church of Rome.

BTW, even though Corinth was closer to Ephesus than Rome was, and St. John was still alive, the authority to correct the Bishop at Corinth fell to Rome, not the living Apostle.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

Also, virtually the very first act that took place after the Ascension into Heaven demonstrated Peter’s authority. In Acts 1:15-26, it is clearly Peter who has decided that they need to replace Judas as an apostle. He also specifies the criteria that needs to be applied to slect an appropriate replacement.

15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,

verses 16-20 describe Judas and his fate.

21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

Thus, faced with the very first important decision to be made after Our Lord leaves this earth, Peter stands up and demonstrates his leadership. Note that the Gospels do not say that Jesus told Peter to, “replace Judas after I am gone.” There was no instruction manual. No leather-bound Bible from Thomas Nelson publishers fell out of the sky.

No, Jesus left Peter to shepherd his Church, and Peter demonstrated that from the very beginning.