So as not to appear biased…
Oh, OK…
So you think it is possible that petros should be translated as “stone” or “piece of rock”, or, even merely “pebble”, referring to Simon, and that petra should be translated as “large rock” or “boulder” - referring to Christ or Simon’s confession?
The early church fathers used The Old Testament to spread their message and even that was read out in Aramaic. The books in which the Early Church Fathers also used were also in Aramaic; it was only when the agreement for Gentiles to enter the Church, was Greek being used more, because it was the common tongue.
I’m not so sure of that, as the Septuagint is quoted quite frequently within the New Testament. In addition the Epistles were definitely written in Greek. Unless Early Church Father is a title exclusive to those who wrote before 60 or 70 AD, I think it’s safe to say that most Early Church Fathers (i.e., the ones after the first century) were using Greek.
The interpretation that I come down on the side of is that Peter is solid as a rock when he believes the revelation that Jesus is the Christ … the son of the living God. … and that upon the rock of God’s pure, direct revelation to those who are willing/able to believe the true identity of Jesus (in the way that Peter demonstrated) … following this model … Jesus said that he would build his church. …I just wanted to preface post #1 by saying:
All Christians belonging to the Catholic Church, believe that Jesus is of course the Divine Rock/Cornerstone on which His church is built.
I was thinking about the different interpretations of sola scriptura among sola scriptura proponents which got me thinking about something else:
Of all the non-Catholics here, (at least those who respond to the thread) - how many believe (or don’t believe) - that the words Petros and Petra are, respectively, the masculine and feminine of the same word rock, as opposed to being 2 different words with 2 different meanings, those being small rock contrasted with big rock?
Also, how many believe that the second rock is, grammatically speaking, referring to the first rock, that being Simon, renamed rock?
The consensus among protestant scholars seems to reflect what the Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel has to say about it:
*“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text suggests a material identity between Petra and Petros as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. Only the fairly assured Aramaic original enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between Petra and Petros, Pertra equals Kefa which equals Petros. Petros himself is this Petra, not just his faith or his confession. The idea of the reformers that He was referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable, for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter, rather the parallelism of that are rock and upon this rock I will build shows the second rock can only be referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name rock. To this extent Roman Catholic Exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” *
Please feel free to quote other protestant scholars who agree with Gerhard Kittel or disagree? I would enjoy reading what either have to say!
Thanks…
The Gospel of St Thomas is consisdered a “forgery”. Late, what 96-AD? Who ever read this in Orthodox Church and deemed it authentic? Do you have a link? Why don’t we follow the Gospel of Judas for that matter? Yes, theres one of those also.Is the reason that you don’t say the same thing about “The Clementine Homilies” that was quoted by [user]GaryTaylor[/user] back in post #59 is because it happens to have a reference were Peter boasted of how he was the foundation of the Church? If there were a similar verse in The Gospel According to Thomas would that somehow give it more credence?
The The Gospel According to Thomas is not a Gospel at all (I don’t know how it got that name) it is simply a listing of sayings of Jesus. Maybe they were things that Jesus said and maybe they are not, but what it is not is a “Johnny come lately book”. On the other hand The Clementine Homilies are about how a sorcerer named Simon Magus came to deceive Romans with his magical powers until Simon Peter came to Rome to get into a magical fight with Simon Magus and killed him one day when Simon Magus was fighting through the air Simon Peter used his powers to make him fall to his death. It also speaks of how Simon Peter preached to all in Rome that they should be refrain from sex with their husbands and wives and this make the men of Rome so mad the they killed Simon Peter by crucifixion. But this book somehow becomes credible simply because it says:
James the Righteous, or James the Just, is the same person who was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. And why do you think that when he is referenced together with St Peter he is always listed BEFORE St Peter, as it “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9)
Also, may I ask why St Peter would even go to Rome when Paul said, “the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” (Galatians 2:7). Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe that St Peter worked under James to minister to the Jews? Just asking
See this is where the leaps and the reaching start. The only part that Peter played was to reveal to the counsel what God revealed to him. Everyone knew that Peter was a prophet as well as an apostle, so no one is going to question what Peter had to say. But nothing was “binding” until James ruled it so and ordered an epistle to be written and sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles.
. But as far as getting into these more modern day ideas of such as “infallibility”, I say that is going too far. St Peter himself referred to things like this as “a more sure word of prophecy” (2nd Peter 1:19). Now there is a difference in degree between “a more sure word of prophecy” and “infallibility”.
To the exclusion of Peter being the rock on which Jesus’ church is built?
Hats off to you, you have exceeded you previous limits.
In truth you would be insulting the “Father” I quoted wouldn’t “you” say? Thus the Pope who happens to agree with him. That is whom I quoted which YOU find “incorrect and anachronistic”
Apparently not only they did, they still do. Do you suppose that just appeared from no-where, and exists for no reason. DIVINE PROVIDENCE its called. From GOD…Bible.
Thats “your” interpretation and word…“worthless”. In other words its an ASSUMPTION and a wild accusation by you.
Lets clarify “your” dilemma.
Still waiting. And with the ECFs.I am sorry to see that you cannot deal with the fact that you are wrong but neither canon 6, nor it’s ancient epitome mentions that anything about the pope (who at that time was called the archbishop of Rome, not the pope) having the authority to take away the authority of Alexandria or Antioch. That is absolutely anachronistic thinking, trying to apply the modern powers of the pope to a situation where he simply did not have that power.Hats off to you, you have exceeded you previous limits.
And the title Pope means what in the grand scale of things when compared the DIVINE PROVIDENCE in Matthew? Who is/was even talking about that? Another distraction which no-one even bought up but “YOU”.
The dispute is as mentioned through Pope Benedict XVIs “proto” at Nicea. Then, you heard it explained to you by a Catholic Father. Then we have “YOUR OPINION”, no links, nothing from the EO, nothing from the early church fathers pre-Constantinople.
According to whom…YOU? You have failed to provide “ONE” link through this entire thread, thus we have “you-opinion”
If it is insulting to say they are wrong then ok.In truth you would be insulting the “Father” I quoted wouldn’t “you” say? Thus the Pope who happens to agree with him. That is whom I quoted which YOU find “incorrect and anachronistic”
Funny, the fact that they acknowledge our Eucharist seems to imply that they realize that they are toothless and unable to declare our sacraments and ordinations invalid.
I didn’t realize that good exegesis stopped ast the third century. Then again, I guss that’s apologetics 101, when a church father holds an opinion which is inconvenient, invalidate him by saying he came too late.
If you want to play that game, then I want you to provide some Fathers from the first century (1-100 AD) who support your exegesis. Cut out those forth and fifth century Fathers, and you’ve basically cut out Augustine, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. I’m not so sure you’re really thinking about what you’re writing at this point as much as you are just trying to be right.
To me, the idea that the assumed original written in Aramaic shows no distinction between petra and petros doesn’t mean much. Until such an original is found so that it can be quoted nobody can say for sure. Although I believe that Matthew was first written in Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic) the other 3 Gospels were written originally in Greek. It is also likely that the first Greek of Matthew was written at the same time that the Hebrew one was written. So the distinction between petra and petros does have some meaning. What that meaning may be is not clear.
There is no dilemma. You really asked for it this time, so here it is. Here is the original Greek of Acts 15:19 (since we are trying to be impartial): διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν,Lets clarify “your” dilemma.
YOU bought up the the WORD…JUDGE in referrence to the DR Bible. I simply asked you to provide another Bible this translations exists in? Thats how the word JUDGE entered this thread. Just to re-direct you to the POINT! You bought it up.
You have provided nothing but your own thinking, no links, no EO links. or teaching of the EO elect, no ECF dating to 1-2nd century …nothing? Oh wait I’m sorry a Jesuit Priest from 1200. And one and “only” hand selected Bible by you, which for some unknown reason we hold in highest esteem as opposed to all other’s exactly why?
I used the KJV as you claim and stated above…To be Objective.
I even provided the name and title of the EWTN show you could go watch and listen, and hear what the CC is stating in regards to the Council of J. and St Peter. I even told you when and what time it was on. Which is in agreement and supports my thinking and understanding of the scripture and more important the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. You chose apparently to ignore it, and somehow want to continue to beat the drum role about St James in “judgement”. Authority etc etc etc.
Where is “anything” supporting “your” stance, but your own “thinking” which at this point I have to believe is Sola Scriptura understanding.
I’m sorry if my disgreeing with you is offensive to you. I find it absurd that somehow you think, your opinion should be the “FINAL AUTHORITY”. Or which Bible and whom we should choose to deem the FINAL WORD. Simply put I disagee. And I fail to see where you have anything else to stand on but this failing agruement.
My “question” to YOU was simple, and is/was…DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER BIBLE WITH THE WORD “JUDGE” IN IT? We are still waiting to the sound of your “silence” once again.
Where are any links from the ECF or the elect of the EO to support your position form Christ time in chronological order foward as I provided.
No one is judging anyone, I listened to your “theory” which is supported by what? The one and only DR Bible where the word “judge” appears.
A Jesuit Priest whom I already showed you what the CC deemed through the New Advent link.
And then you stretch to St Augustine bypassing 350+ years of the Holy Apostolic Church. How about the first-second, third century, and we’ll work our way up from Christs death? Logical no, when talking ECF? I’m not positive, but I do believe its the “why” I bought us back to the Bible in the thread to begin with. When of course the belief was we should start at Nicea, and why would that be? That was my point “originally”
And this “is” why we have the Pope and College of Cardinals/Mag.
“Galilee of the Gentiles” was the region where Jesus “of Nazareth” was raised and grew up. He had to have known Greek. When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate did Jesus speak Greek or did Pontius Pilate speak Aramaic? Or did they have a translator? When Jesus visited Tyre, Sidon and the Decapolis (Mark 7:31) did he speak Greek there, or did he have a translator?
I think, if I remember correctly, Pilate addressed Christ in Aramaic, and Christ responded in Greek, which is part of what shocked Pilate. Though I could be thinking of something else.
Pilate spoke Aramaic? Is this an actual fact or mere speculation? I can understand the plausibility of Pilate speaking Greek,but Aramaic?
Whatever your feelings are yours alone. Please stop “projecting them on to me”. I simply disagree with you and am trying to show you where. Somehow its confusing and distracting. Lets try “again”. Maybe its me.
Again, perhaps I’m not remembering correctly, but I think part of what shocked Pilate is that Christ spoke to him in Greek. As God, l’m pretty sure Christ probably understood Greek regardless.
As God he probly could have spoke any language, But what does He speak on the Cross?
I do believe the whole petra/Petros thing, regarding Simon re-named Cephas, stands on its own but was just curious about one thing:
Makes a lot of sense, and not just because I am now a catholic. I would have agreed as a former protestant.Whatever your feelings are yours alone. Please stop “projecting them on to me”. I simply disagree with you and am trying to show you where. Somehow its confusing and distracting. Lets try “again”. Maybe its me.
Its irrelevant you don’t seem to get this or my point.
The Council of Jerusalem started where in the Bible? 15:1! And it ends where? at 15:12! Then starts “James on Dietary Law”…15:13.
Your saying we should be reading in “context” yet you fail to do so?
Let me walk you through this once more…
Lets “back-up” in context to the actual Council of Jeruselem.
Let us start at…
15:7 AFTER MUCH “Discussion” Peter took the floor and said to them: "Brothers you know well enough that from the early days GOD selected “ME”[PETER] from YOUR numbers to be the ONE from who’s lips the Gentiles would hear the message of the Gospel and believe.
15:8 God, who reads the hearts of men, showed His approval by granting the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us.
15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, but purified their hearts by means of faith also.
15:10 Why then do you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither WE nor the our fathers were able to bear.
15:11 OUR BELIEF is…[thats the entire council with Peter speaking]…that WE are saved by the favor of the Lord Jesus and so are they.
15:12 At that the Whole Assembly Fell Silent. [Notice the period at the end of that sentence] They listened to Barnabas and Paul as the two described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. [Another period]
Thats its the Council is over. St Peter spoke for the Council “WE” as so noted…“Our Belief” as so noted. Thats St Peter speaking for ALL the Apostles.
The original dialogue starts and goes back and forth with St Peter and St Paul. Which btw St Peter originally didn’t grasp St Pauls thinking. Which simply was…How in the world can we ask a 40-yo old man converted to consent to this? He had a very good point. However, not of consequence.
…
“James on Dietary Law” and lets use your word which “isn’t” the point again.
15:13 When they CONCLUDED their Presentation. James spoke up [again the Council is over, concluded]
“Brothers listen to me” James is now talking about the meat of strangled animals, and blood.
15:19 It is my [its his not the councils, not we, or us, or our, but MY] “judgement” therefor etc etc etc. and St James goes on to speak NOT of the already concluded council but what follows in the NEXT verse 15:20:shrug:
That is “proper” context.
Now as far as the GREEK? What language did Jesus Christ speak on the Cross? So we should the “assume” that Greek was His language of preference? I fail to see the logic?
Again SORRY if I disagree with you. My point wasn’t judge, sentence etc. It was St James speaking for himself, and not in context with the Council of Jerusalem.
Maybe its my explaination, if so I am sorry. But somehow you seem to be missing my points.
And no, I also never said anything about ECFs from the 4th foward being irrelevant. What in the world made you thnk this? I stated why start at the 4th. and not from the begining? Don’t you find thats a bit out of Chronological order? I do.
And “judge” is not the only Greek translation, nor has it been through History. I simply again disagree. But nor is it the point of my dialogue. Which somehow you suggest this one sentence of St James is! Go back through this thread, and you will see where I mention "its “MY” judgement/sentence/words whatever you deem fit. I’m good with. However its St James own words and not on the Council of Jerusalem. Sorry I disagree.
Your prays are much appreciated, Thank You btw. I pray for everyone here daily.
Peace
And further consider this, Jesus lived at Home with St Joseph and the Blessed Mother till he was 30. Then for only three years he traveled? And what would we assume the language was at home?