Petra and Petros...?

[GaryTaylor]

EWTN did an extensive show on this last night. More so than I have ever heard. Let me see if I can find the link.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The translation of the Greek would have came from the Aramaic no?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587192

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes I read the link.

Niceas points are very good as usual.

What Catholics Really Believe …Ep-11 … is the show. Its on tonight also.

 

[MontChevalier]

The problem with Greek is that it’s not the language Christ spoke. So it has no place within the context of the Bible. Petros and Petra are nothing, but the Orthodox’s weapon against Catholicism; which is why they’re both separated.

We have to take the Bible in Aramaic, which is the true language of Christ, and the context must be done so according to that language.

Notice, on Matthew 16:18 in the Aramaic bible:
“I tell you now, you are a stone, and upon this stone, I shall build my church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it.”

dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=Matthew+16:18&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150%

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ

Notice how different they are from the Protestant and Orthodox bibles?
Therefore, the Protestants have no claims to their 40,000 different church denominations. But the Orthodox, however, have apostolic succession, which the Catholic Church can work with. So, it’s not the gates of hell that the verse is talking about, but death. You really have to hand it to the Syriac liturgy for this beautiful preservation of the true faith. God bless them, I say.

-MontChevalier

 

[Eruvande]

I’ve been taught that it’s Peter’s confession of faith that is the rock upon which the church is built. Now I come to readdress it, it does seem odd that Peter’s name is changed for no discernable reason. The Catholic explaination does seem to make sense of the whole passage.

 

[Hail_Linus]

I’ve been taught that it’s Peter’s confession of faith that is the rock upon which the church is built. Now I come to readdress it, it does seem odd that Peter’s name is changed for no discernable reason. The Catholic explaination does seem to make sense of the whole passage.

I glad you see this but I would not totally dismiss what you were taught if read in light of the totality of scripture as well as tradition. Let me explain:

You are right there must be some reason that Simon’s name is changed to Peter. Especially since upon their initial meeting (described in Gospel of John 1:42) Jesus tells Simon he will someday be called Kepha (Cephas). Why did he leave Peter to anticipate the meaning of this statement? Why did Jesus wait for a specific moment.

A Petra, Kepha, or even tsur or sela in Hebrew could refer to a formed stone/rock. Perhaps that because of his faith Jesus said “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” It could be that the “Father who is in Heaven” trans"formed" Simon into Peter. In John 2, Jesus said Simon would one day be called Peter but it wasn’t until this statement by Jesus that he then said,“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

In other words, it was Peter’s faith that made him the Rock.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve been taught that it’s Peter’s confession of faith that is the rock upon which the church is built. Now I come to readdress it, it does seem odd that Peter’s name is changed for no discernable reason. The Catholic explaination does seem to make sense of the whole passage.

More important,when God changes one’s name usually comes more implications.

 

[pablope]

I’ve been taught that it’s Peter’s confession of faith that is the rock upon which the church is built. Now I come to readdress it, it does seem odd that Peter’s name is changed for no discernable reason. The Catholic explaination does seem to make sense of the whole passage.

It will make more sense when you consider the following:

Abram to Abraham…and God’s command…to be the father of nations

Jacob to Israle…God’s command…to be the father of Israel

Simon to Cephas/Petros/Peter…Jesus’ command…to build His Church.

 

[Eruvande]

In other words, it was Peter’s faith that made him the Rock.

Ah yes, I see, that makes sense. So my initial teaching is true, but only in part, it doesn’t have the fullness of truth.

 

[joe370]

Well maybe “Something” like that, but really, more like, ‘You are Peter (Masculine), and upon The See of Peter (Feminine) I will build my Church’.

Problem is, Jesus never said that. He said, you are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.

Not: "you are kepha and on this See of kepha I will build my church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The problem with Greek is that it’s not the language Christ spoke. So it has no place within the context of the Bible. Petros and Petra are nothing, but the Orthodox’s weapon against Catholicism; which is why they’re both separated.

However, Greek is the language that the oldest surviving gospels are written in, as well as the language of the epistles. Despite the fact that Christ may have not spoken Greek, the Gospels might have been written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the region.

By the way, St. Augustine even says that he himself believes that the rock (Petra) is Christ, rather than Peter who is Petros, so to say that it’s some sort of “weapon” that the Orthodox wield against the Catholics is completely incorrect. It is a legitimate patristic interpretation (and as St. Augustine also says, it really matters not if the rock is Peter or Christ).

We have to take the Bible in Aramaic, which is the true language of Christ, and the context must be done so according to that language.

Notice, on Matthew 16:18 in the Aramaic bible:
“I tell you now, you are a stone, and upon this stone, I shall build my church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it.”

dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=Matthew+16:18&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150%

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ

The Aramaic version cannot be proven to be the original. It is possibly a translation from Koine Greek.

Notice how different they are from the Protestant and Orthodox bibles?

Last I checked, the Douay Rheims translation says the same thing as ‘Protestant and Orthodox bibles’ (of course, that’s because the Latin Vulgate version comes from the Koine Greek of the ‘Orthodox bible’, which you allege is incorrect):

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

Therefore, the Protestants have no claims to their 40,000 different church denominations. But the Orthodox, however, have apostolic succession, which the Catholic Church can work with. So, it’s not the gates of hell that the verse is talking about, but death.

Again, that all depends on the assumption that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic instead of Greek.

You really have to hand it to the Syriac liturgy for this beautiful preservation of the true faith. God bless them, I say.

And yet even though they supposedly profess that Peter is the rock, they don’t believe in the papal claims. Curious, isn’t it?

 

[joe370]

Hey friend…

Cavaradossi;8523152]However, Greek is the language that the oldest surviving gospels are written in, as well as the language of the epistles. Despite the fact that Christ may have not spoken Greek, the Gospels might have been written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the region.

Very true. When Jesus said those words of Matthew 16 to Simon, did he say, you are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church, or did he say, you are petros and on this petra I will build my church?

By the way, St. Augustine even says that he himself believes that the rock (Petra) is Christ, rather than Peter who is Petros,

Of course Jesus’ church is built on Jesus; no one denies that obvious fact. Augustine believed both.

The Aramaic version cannot be proven to be the original. It is possibly a translation from Koine Greek.

Cephas, referring to Simon as Rock, is preserved at least 3 times in the NT.

And yet even though they supposedly profess that Peter is the rock, they don’t believe in the papal claims. Curious, isn’t it?

Why do you think that is my friend?

 

[JohnVIII]

The problem with Greek is that it’s not the language Christ spoke. So it has no place within the context of the Bible. Petros and Petra are nothing, but the Orthodox’s weapon against Catholicism; which is why they’re both separated.

We have to take the Bible in Aramaic, which is the true language of Christ, and the context must be done so according to that language.

Notice, on Matthew 16:18 in the Aramaic bible:
“I tell you now, you are a stone, and upon this stone, I shall build my church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it.”

dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=Matthew+16:18&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150%

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ

Notice how different they are from the Protestant and Orthodox bibles?
Therefore, the Protestants have no claims to their 40,000 different church denominations. But the Orthodox, however, have apostolic succession, which the Catholic Church can work with. So, it’s not the gates of hell that the verse is talking about, but death. You really have to hand it to the Syriac liturgy for this beautiful preservation of the true faith. God bless them, I say.

-MontChevalier

Even though I am Eastern Orthodox I mostly agree in the concept of Peter’s primacy. In discussion over the Pope’s primacy with a Roman Catholic Priest once he even told me that I hold TOO HIGH of an opinion of the primacy of Rome; however having said that, I feel that I tend to think that when it comes to this issue, advocates of Peter’s primacy are arguing for it in a “Sola Scriptora” fashion. Even if it helps your argument in the slightest way you resort to what you extrapolate the Aramaic might have said! This really amazes me. (In Hebrew, Holy Spirit is female (Ruach Elohim), but in Greek She is neuter. So, would you say “God bless” to the original Hebrew for letting us know that the Holy Spirit is female, just for the sake of consistency of interpretation?)

Any Church Father that you may wish to quote will not tell you that it is a tradition in the Church to believe that St Peter and his successors hold an extreme primacy in the Church, they will only quote the same verse in Matthew and give their opinion of it’s interpretation, which interpretation is not always the same with each and every Church Father. And when they quote it they quote it in Greek of course! (Or perhaps Latin, which is a translation from the Greek.)

I believe it is far more likely that most Jewish people at the time of Jesus spoke Greek rather than Aramaic. When the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament the quote comes much closer the the Greek Septuagint then to the Hebrew, which seems to indicate that Greek Septuagint was the primary scriptures used by the Apostles, and why not the primary scriptures used by Christ too.

What is so bad about Greek Scriptures?

 

[Marybeloved]

However, Greek is the language that the oldest surviving gospels are written in, as well as the language of the epistles. Despite the fact that Christ may have not spoken Greek, the Gospels might have been written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the region.

The Aramaic version cannot be proven to be the original. It is possibly a translation from Koine Greek.

Why should that matter anyway when st. John tells us in the 1st chapter of his Gospel that Peter actually means Cephas? How about the fact that st. Paul called him Cephas and our Lord had promised him that his name would become Cephas? The point remains, the separation of Petros and Petra means nothing- We know Peter was actually named Cephas by the Lord , which would make the Aramaic version closer to the actual wording used than the Greek.

Again, that all depends on the assumption that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic instead of Greek.

Isn’t there tradition in the early church that St. Mathews Gospel (which relates the whole affair) was actually originally in Aramaic?

And yet even though they supposedly profess that Peter is the rock, they don’t believe in the papal claims. Curious, isn’t it?

I’d say that if people could go against the Apostles as indicated in the New Testament, anyone can go against Peter’s successor regardless of what they read in the Bible. Protestants read the same scriptures we read, that doesn’t stop them from denying the real presence, does it?

 

[JohnVIII]

Problem is, Jesus never said that. He said, you are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.

Not: "you are kepha and on this See of kepha I will build my church.

Why would that be a problem, I am only submitting it as what it may have referred to. In all likelihood Jesus never said “Church” either. He was a Jew speaking to Jews, so isn’t it likely that He said Synagogue instead of Church? But the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew for the Jews and the Greek Gospel of Matthew was a translation made later (at a time when the word “Church” would make more sense) in Greek for Greek speaking Jews and for Greeks too. Perhaps if the Greek version of Matthew was written after there was such a thing as “the See of Peter” it may have said exactly that! But at the time that it was written no one would have understood what “the See of Peter” was.

 

[Marybeloved]

What is so bad about Greek Scriptures?

Nothing, my friend. But how about the fact that other parts of the NT clearly indicate that the name Peter is actually Cephas? This shows that our Lord did not name him with a Greek name, but Cephas, which the people translated in the Greek commonly spoken, just as Jesus Christ is actually Yeshu Mashiak, (or something like that).

 

[Marybeloved]

Why would that be a problem, I am only submitting it as what it may have referred to. In all likelihood Jesus never said “Church” either. He was a Jew speaking to Jews, so isn’t it likely that He said Synagogue instead of Church? But the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew for the Jews and the Greek Gospel of Matthew was a translation made later (at a time when the word “Church” would make more sense) in Greek for Greek speaking Jews and for Greeks too. Perhaps if the Greek version of Matthew was written after there was such a thing as “the See of Peter” it may have said exactly that! But at the time that it was written no one would have understood what “the See of Peter” was.

This speculation is valid.

 

[joe370]

JohnVIII;8523724]Why would that be a problem, I am only submitting it as what it may have referred to.

It’s not scriptural, and tradition doesn’t support that reference, but okay. I take it you are not a scripture alone proponent? Cool…

In all likelihood Jesus never said “Church” either.

He definitely didn’t use the word See which is Latin meaning sancta sedes aka holy chair. Jesus probably used the word assembly, which is expressed in Aramaic as kehala, and in Hebrew gahal, corresponding to the scriptural Greek ekklesia.

He was a Jew speaking to Jews, so isn’t it likely that He said Synagogue instead of Church?

So you think maybe, if He used the word Synagogue then why not See as well?

But the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew for the Jews and the Greek Gospel of Matthew was a translation made later (at a time when the word “Church” would make more sense) in Greek for Greek speaking Jews and for Greeks too. Perhaps if the Greek version of Matthew was written after there was such a thing as “the See of Peter” it may have said exactly that! But at the time that it was written no one would have understood what “the See of Peter” was.

OK. Does it seem reasonable to believe that Jesus probably said, you are kepha and on this kepha…?

By the way what was your answer to post #1?

 

[Marybeloved]

In other words, it was Peter’s faith that made him the Rock.

I’m not denying the validity of this view, but the Apostles did express that same faith in who Jesus was on several other occassions- But it didn’t make them rock, did it? I say it’s God the Father’s election of Peter that makes him Rock and grants him by revelation, the special faith required.