Petros/Petra Attic/Koine

[Mystophilus]

Todd Easton:

However, if, as you suggest, the Greek word petros never appears in the voluminous Greek Septuagint with its hundreds of references to rocks and stones of various sizes, it makes me wonder if the word petros had not completely fallen out of use so as to be unknown among the Greek-speaking Jews when the Septuagint was written some years before Christ? If that is the case and the word petros wasn’t even known some years before Christ, then the word Petros at the time of Christ would most probably just be the masculinization of the female word petra, the common word for rock, to make it suitable as a man’s name.

Regarding the existence of the word itself, “petros” appears in the works of such writers as Homer, Pindar, Sophocles, Xenophon. These people were never forgotten by the Hellenistic world, and neither were their writings.

Regarding the “masculine form of petra”, there are three problems. The first is that one noun could have two genders. “theos” (god/goddess) is probably the most common example. “petros” itself is occasionally feminine. Gender was indicated by the form of the article rather than the form of the noun. The second problem is that “petros” was a pre-existing word: Homer was writing eight centuries before the NT. The third is that the two nouns are of different declensions: had anyone wanted to make a differentiated masculine form of “petra”, then “petras” would have been the natural derivative. This is, after all, the declension in which we find Thomas, Barnabas, and Kephas.

What I think ought to be considered is the possibility that Simon himself, the man who (tradition has it) chose to be crucified upside-down because he was not worthy to die in the same fashion as his Lord, humbly wished to be only ‘the Little Rock’, not least because of the usage of “petra” to refer to God in the LXX.

 

[nordskoven]

If the stone of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream grew into a mighty rock crushing all mountains before it, why is there any discussion on the size of the stone which is Peter? I smell red herring…

More importantly, Christ named Simon “Peter” the first moment He saw Him, not after his profession of faith.

The only four personal “rock” references in the Bible are to 1. God 2. Abraham 3. Christ 4. Peter. The intent and import is obvious.

Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom in the Shebna-Eliakim vein, and Peter rules as the Prime Minister to the King of Kings until His return. Reject His servants, as Christ said, and you reject Christ and the Father. Staunch this hemorrhage in the Body of Christ quickly and surely with such proofs, not niggling over translations. No Peter, no Jesus or Abba. Get on the Rock.

 

[Mystophilus]

nordskoven:

More importantly, Christ named Simon “Peter” the first moment He saw Him, not after his profession of faith.

We presume that Christ named Simon “kephas”. What we have been discussing is the relationship between “kephas”, “petra” and “petros”.

The only four personal “rock” references in the Bible are to 1. God 2. Abraham 3. Christ 4. Peter. The intent and import is obvious.

The problem absolutist comments using such words as “only” is that they have a lot of ground to cover when applied to a text as large as the Bible. Other people are referred to as ‘rock’ or ‘rocks’: in Deuteronomy 32:37, “their gods”; in Psalm 60:7 and 108:8, “Ephraim” (although ‘mawooz’ can be translated in many ways); in Isaiah 32:2, “each man”; in Isaiah 44:8, “[an]other god”. The Hebrews used several different words for ‘rock’, many of them interchangeably, for the concepts of strength, durability, power / sharpness (e.g., Ps 89:43), and even physical integrity / beauty (e.g., Ps 49:14). In short, they liked the image, and applied it quite freely.

Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom in the Shebna-Eliakim vein, and Peter rules as the Prime Minister to the King of Kings until His return

Hopefully, Peter’s commissioning was not meant too closely in that vein, because Eliakim’s commissioning was accompanied by the prophecy of his fall (Is 22:25). As for being Peter appointed to the role of Prime Minister (or, more likely, viceroy), that never happens in the text, nor does any suggestion that his role will be permanent.

Reject His servants, as Christ said, and you reject Christ and the Father.

"[Jesus said,] tell them, “The kingdom of God is near you.’…he who rejects you rejects me; be he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:9, 16). In the passage in question, the rejection of the servants is directly linked to the rejection of the message itself, and therefore of its Author. The text’s description of the precise nature of Peter’s role, which is the subject under discussion, is another matter entirely.

Staunch this hemorrhage in the Body of Christ quickly and surely with such proofs, not niggling over translations. No Peter, no Jesus or Abba. Get on the Rock.

First, unsupported assertions are not “proofs”. Second, this is not about “niggling over translations”: this is about learning more about the text through discussion of its content. Third, and by far most important, Peter is human, and no mere mortal should ever be placed on the same level as Almighty God, let alone be placed above Almighty God as your consequential statement has done by making Almighty God’s position a derivative of Peter’s! :nope:

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi cmon, do we have any aramaic manuscripts today for matthew?

 

[YADA]

Mystophilus and others,

With all due respect, who or what received the keys? Jesus cannot hand himself the keys as he is already the possessor. Jesus did not hand the keys to a nearby “big boulder” as a rock (an inanimate object) cannot receive the keys. Peter, the Rock, can receive the keys and normal sentence construction and subject/verb agreement indicates that it is Peter who receives the keys.

As to the Shebna-Eliakim connection and a predicted fall in Isaiah, Jesus promises a protection against the fall; “the Gates of Hell shall prevail” against the Church and the leader just given the keys. Peter as the leader is alludeded in the text by the quote from Isaiah, or did Jesus just quote Isaiah by accident? If quotes from the Hebrew texts are ‘accidental’ in some areas then you could argue that all of them are ‘accidental’ and thus meaningless. What would those jewish men with Jesus have heard and understood when Jesus quoted the passage from Isaiah.

Peter is not above God nor was the Prime Minister of the House (Kingdom) of David above the King. No Catholic believes that the Pope is greater than God, over God or more powerful than God. Jesus is our hope and our salvation. Jesus is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings. To suggest otherwise is blasphemy. I have never met any Catholic who was misguided on this point.

Notice in Isaiah we have the Prime Minister of the House of David long after the death of King David and even Soloman. The Kingship continues and at the pleasure of the king the office of Prime Minister continues. Jesus is the Davidic King and he established Peter as the prime minister to lead and the people shall know and call upon this Prime Minister as Abba, Father, Papa, or Pope.

If the Apostles, who walked with Jesus needed a leader, how much more so, us, the Church, after 2000 years. Offices by their very nature are filled upon an opening. The fact that a replacement for Judas was selected also supports the apostolic offices of which Peter held a primary role. The installation of office by the “laying on of hands” supports postions of an ongoing nature.

There are far more scriptural, linguistic and logical gymnastics in play to denigrate and do away with the ‘apostolic’ aspect of Christianity than the other way around, IMHO.

 

[Mystophilus]

YADA:

Mystophilus and others,

With all due respect, who or what received the keys? Jesus cannot hand himself the keys as he is already the possessor. Jesus did not hand the keys to a nearby “big boulder” as a rock (an inanimate object) cannot receive the keys. Peter, the Rock, can receive the keys and normal sentence construction and subject/verb agreement indicates that it is Peter who receives the keys.

As to the Shebna-Eliakim connection and a predicted fall in Isaiah, Jesus promises a protection against the fall; “the Gates of Hell shall prevail” against the Church and the leader just given the keys. Peter as the leader is alludeded in the text by the quote from Isaiah, or did Jesus just quote Isaiah by accident? If quotes from the Hebrew texts are ‘accidental’ in some areas then you could argue that all of them are ‘accidental’ and thus meaningless. What would those jewish men with Jesus have heard and understood when Jesus quoted the passage from Isaiah?

They would have heard the reference to the eben shetiyya.

 

[Mystophilus]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi cmon, do we have any aramaic manuscripts today for matthew?

Sorry, but no; nor have we found any firm evidence for there ever having been any. Papias may well have been wrong.

 

[YADA]

Mystophilus,

You say they would hear the reference to the “eben sheitiyya”, but the quote is directly from Isaiah. Your position has less credence in the context of the discourse. Jesus would not rename Peter to a rock, stone or pebble, then refer to himself as the Rock, give himself (or Peter’s confession, or a large boulder) the keys to the kingdom, and then what? Is the Temple Stone is given the power to open and shut?

C’mon, ya’ll, ya’ll act like Jesus cudn’t talk rite, dint know to put word together proper, like.

---

MATTHEW CHAPTER 16:

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

---

Lets recap:
I will give “you” …Upon this… what “you” bind …what “you” loose

Simon Peter is the receiver of a new name, keys, power to open and close…

Shades of Isaiah, Prime Minister [an offce], keys, open , close, called Abba by the people.

 

[Mystophilus]

YADA:

You say they would hear the reference to the “eben shetiyya”, but the quote is directly from Isaiah. Your position has less credence in the context of the discourse.

It is not my position; it is the Jewish one, an understanding of the text based not only upon one, single reference in the OT, but upon a plethora of cultural associations, some of which were mentioned in the other thread. In essence, what I am saying is that, yes, Isaiah 22 is being referenced here, but it is only one point among many. This, of course, is the problem with accusations of decontextualisation: the context of Scripture is everything which every one of the writers of the various books had ever read. When we look into that, we find all sorts of strange things, such as Isaiah 22:25.

Jesus would not rename Peter to a rock, stone or pebble, then refer to himself as the Rock, give himself (or Peter’s confession, or a large boulder) the keys to the kingdom, and then what? Is the Temple Stone given the power to open and shut?

Read the other thread, and you will see exactly what the stone does.

I am curious as to how you derived the suggestion that petra refers to Christ. The Fathers regarded petra in various ways, the core reading being as the confession (q.v. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 424, 442, 552 and 756). The suggestion that it should refer to Christ alone, or to a large boulder, is new to me.

Simon Peter is the receiver of a new name, keys, power to

bind and loose, a power which was also given to the other disciples in Mt 18:18, a fact which (coincidentally) happens to support the Fathers’ reading of petra in Mt 16:18 as applying to those who made the confession of faith.

Shades of Isaiah, Prime Minister [an office], keys, open , close, called Abba by the people.

Who was called ‘Abba’ by the people? So far as I can see, that term only appears thrice in the NT (Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6), and only in reference to God. Do you have another source?

 

[YADA]

The Prime Minister in Isaiah is known as a "Father [Abba] to the people.

Isaiah22:20-25

"20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.”

And I never said that the theology of this passage is limited just to the Apostolic Succession of a physical leader of the Church on earth. However, it is disingenuous to exclude the clear reference to leadership of the early church, the clear historical evidence that leadership was exercised and conitues to this day. S. T Lachs, a Jewish Scholar has written “The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys.” This is from the man who wrote *A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and luke, *[Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987]. If Jewish scolars can read the text and come to that conclusion…

That Isaiah is clearly quoted has to be given great weight and possibly more weight than other similar references and ‘cultural associations’ no matter the quantity. That is not to say that in understanding scripture in all of its various theologies and contexts we would disregard those elements that you mention.

I also agree that the other apostles received the authority to bind and loose latter. This does not diminish what was given first to Peter. We see this played out in the role of bishops today. The “Pope” is first adn formost a Bishop, he exercises his role as the leader of the church in conjunction with his fellow bishops and not alone or in isolatoin from them. Peter is also singled out by Jesus to “feed my lambs” in his three fold “yes, I love you” that countered his three fold denial of Christ.

Some [mainly Protestants] have argued that the Big Boulder to Peter’s little Rock [Petra v. Petro] is that Jesus is the Rock and Peter is a pebble.

That the early church father’s testify to the confession of Peter is true. However, those same early church father’s testify to ongoing leadership in the church [apostolic sucession] and they also contain many references to the “chair” of Peter and a primary leadership within the church as well. Pope St. Clement 80-98 AD, St Irenaeus 180-199 AD Tertullian 200 AD. Origen 216 AD, Cyprian 246 AD, Aphraates the Persian Sage 336 AD, Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari 340-350 AD, St Ephraem the Syrian 350-370 AD, etc.

 

[Mystophilus]

YADA:

Isaiah22:
"20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

That is interesting. In the NT, Abraham is called “our father” in Acts 7:2 and repeatedly in Romans 4; Isaac in Romans 9:10; Paul calls himself father to Onesimus (v.10), and to the Corinthians (1 Co 4:15). Paul also repeatedly speaks of Timothy as his ‘son’, or ‘child’, as Peter does of Mark (1 Pe 5:13), and John does of the congregations to whom he wrote (1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). Had Mt 16:19 been a reference to Peter’s exclusive fatherhood, we would not see so many other people so designated, and “Abba” is never used in the NT for anyone other than God.

And I never said that the theology of this passage is limited just to the Apostolic Succession of a physical leader of the Church on earth. However, it is disingenuous to exclude the clear reference to leadership of the early church, the clear historical evidence that leadership was exercised and continues to this day.

There is certainly a reference to Peter’s representative role (that is what the petros-petra interplay says, after all). However, the “historical evidence” of the leadership of the Roman patriarch is only evidence of the role of the patriarch of the Empire’s largest city as a resort in disputes. The patriarch of Rome ruled the early Church no more than the Supreme Court rules the United States of America. The subsequent loss of the entire Greek church and then the Protestants reduced it yet further. There is no question that the Pope is pre-eminent in Catholicism. To the other branches of the worldwide Church, however, he is as relevant as the English monarchy: respected, but not obeyed.

If Jewish scolars can read the text and come to that conclusion…

…yes? Jewish scholars read the texts and come to all sorts of conclusions. Arguing about the meaning of texts is a basic part of Jewish culture. They make Protestants look positively harmonious, which is why I think that the Jews are great!

]That Isaiah is clearly quoted has to be given great weight and possibly more weight than other similar references and ‘cultural associations’ no matter the quantity. That is not to say that in understanding scripture in all of its various theologies and contexts we would disregard those elements that you mention.

On what basis can it be reasonably claimed that the reference in Matthew 16:19 to Isaiah 22:22 “has to be” given “great” weight, let alone greater weight than other references? The fourfold reference to the eben shetiyya (petra…foundation of church…keys to the kingdom of Heaven…gates of Hell) is blindingly obvious to anyone who understands the Jewish belief. The reference to Isaiah 22:22 is singular. As previously mentioned, the extension of that reference to include the rest of the Isaiah passage ought also to take into account v. 25, in which the Prime Minister falls. Is that, too, a reference to Peter? If it is not, then it is not reasonable to claim that v. 21, or vv. 23-4 are.

Some [mainly Protestants] have argued that the Big Boulder to Peter’s little Rock [Petra v. Petros] is that Jesus is the Rock and Peter is a pebble.

The naturally inclusive nature of the “petra” bedrock could include Christ, especially as that word is used for him in 1 Pe 2:8. However, I still prefer the reading that it is the confession and thus those who make the confession, because it makes more sense in the whole context of Mt 16 and 18.

However, those same early church fathers testify to ongoing leadership in the church [apostolic sucession] and they also contain many references to the “chair” of Peter and a primary leadership within the church as well.

Like the Jews, the Fathers said lots of things, many of them “contradictory” by modern standards.

 

[YADA]

But I, nor the Church, have ever said Peter had an exclusive fatherhood role. Quite the contrary, all of the Bishops, as successors top the Apostles are spiritual fathers, as you note above. But the pre-emminence of Peter’s role is not diminished. Yes, at a later the time the Apostles are given the power to “bind and loose.” They are not the ‘rock’ upon which His church is built nor are they given the “keys” in the same way. As to being ‘removed’ as the predassessor to Eliakhim, Jesus promises that the ‘gates of hell’ shall not prevail against his church and if a successor of Peter was ‘evil’ as that other Prime Minister, God would remove him, the office would remain to be filled. This is in harmony with Isaiah’s message.

[That *is

interesting. In the NT, Abraham is called “our father” in Acts 7:2 and repeatedly in Romans 4; Isaac in Romans 9:10; Paul calls himself father to Onesimus (v.10), and to the Corinthians (1 Co 4:15). Paul also repeatedly speaks of Timothy as his ‘son’, or ‘child’, as Peter does of Mark (1 Pe 5:13), and John does of the congregations to whom he wrote (1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). Had Mt 16:19 been a reference to Peter’s exclusive fatherhood, we would not see so many other people so designated, and “Abba” is never used in the NT for anyone other than God.

the “historical evidence” of the leadership of the Roman patriarch is only evidence of the role of the patriarch of the Empire’s largest city as a resort in disputes. The patriarch of Rome ruled the early Church no more than the Supreme Court rules the United States of America.

Tertullian: “Was anything hidden from Peter, who is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built; who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” and another …
" For if thou thinkest heaven is still closed, remeber that the Lord left here the keys thereof to Peter, and through him to the Church; which keys every one here questioned and confesses, shall carry with him." circa 200-220 AD

**St Hippolytus: **“Peter, the Rock of faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom.” circa 225 AD

Origen: “See what is said by the Lord to [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, a most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church…” and another
"What, in a previous passage was granted to Peter alone, seems here to be grnated to all who have addresses three admonitions to ll sinners, in order that, if they not be listened to, thay may bind on earth the person condemned to be a heathen…But, as it was fit,-even though something in common was sp0oken of Peter and of those…, - that Peter should have somehting in peculiar above those…, - much difference and preeminece in the words spoken to Peter… circa 230-250 AD

Continues

 

[YADA]

As to the largest European city being nothing to the US, well in many ways the Pope does not “Rule the Church” He works with the Bishops for the unity of the CHurch and St Cyprian would agree witht he teaching of the Church and the role of the Pope as successor to Peter as eveidenced by the following:

St. Cyprian: "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church…And again He says to him after the resurrection; ‘Feed my sheep’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Aportles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shephards, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to the unity of Peter, can he still imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"
Circa 246 AD

The fact that the Eastern Church [not all of the eastern churches and even some of those have come home to the chair of Peter] and the Protestant Churches have left the chair of Peter and the unity of Christianity does not mean that it does not exist.

 

[Mystophilus]

YADA:

Yes, at a later the time the Apostles are given the power to “bind and loose.” They are not the ‘rock’ upon which His church is built

Are they not? Origen says:if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church,
All of the following Fathers read πετρα as separate to πετρος in Matthew 16:18:

Hermas (similitudines pastoris, 9.2.1, 9.12.1)
Eusebius Caesariensis (preparatio evangelica 1.3; Psalmi 60:2-3; et al.)
Modestus Hierosolymitanus (fragmentum homiliae in unguentiferas mulieres)
Hippolytus of Rome (de theopania 9)
Theodoretus Cyrrhensis (commentarius in Canticum Canticorum)
Joannes V Hierosolymitanus (opusculum contra iconoclastas 16)
Origen (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII); selecta in Exodus 17:6; homiliae in Jeremias 16.2; commentarius (ser.) in Matthew 139; et al.)
Basilius Caesariensis Cappadocie (liber in Spiritu sancto 31)
Gregorius Nazianzenus (orationes 26.9)
Procopius Gazaeus (comm. in Exodus 33:21)
John Chrysostom (Homily 54 on Matthew)

In these readings, πετρα, the foundation, is the confession (which is then applied by the Fathers to all who confess), the faith (which is then applied by the Fathers to all who hold it), the truth of the doctrine maintained by the Fathers (which is then applied by the Fathers to all who follow it), or all disciples in Christ (q.v., Origen, above).

Many of these same Fathers also placed the foundation on Peter, which is not surprising, because that is simply a derivation of all of the other readings. Thus, the Fathers repeatedly stated, as the Catholic Church still maintains, that Peter was the rock, but not the only one.

nor are they given the “keys” in the same way. As to being ‘removed’ as the predecessor to Eliakhim, Jesus promises that the ‘gates of hell’ shall not prevail against his church

Peter is not the church. The reference to the gates of Hell not prevailing is because the eben shetiyya held those gates shut.

if a successor of Peter was ‘evil’ as that other Prime Minister, God would remove him, the office would remain to be filled. This is in harmony with Isaiah’s message.

Isaiah never says that Eliakim was evil, neither in ch. 22 nor in ch. 36, and neither does the parallel passage in 2 Kings 18. The removal of the prime minister in Isaiah 22 is not predicated upon any judgement of any kind, nor is it at all conditional. The message is simply that the minister will be appointed, will enjoy the favour of all, and will then be summarily removed.

Either only the actual reference in v. 22 applies to Peter, or the whole passage applies to Peter. Considering Jesus’ tendency towards a very selective usage of verses drawn from within other OT passages, it appears most likely that only v. 22 applies.

 

[YADA]

I never said that Eliahkim was evil nor did I say that Isaiah made that case. You read Isaiah and most of scripture like you read Origen, selectively. Eliahkim was installed into his office to replace the previous Prime Minister, who was removed for his wickedness.

The fact that all Bishops, particular to their role as shephards and all who confess that Jesus is Lord, the Messiah, God are rocks upon which the Church is built does not take away from the leadership role that is attached to the Chair of Peter and his successors. This is as other writings of Origen note and you ignore, as quoted above. It is Origen who refers to Peter as the "Prince of the Apostles upon whom was given “more honour than the rest.” Who also said that “There is one baptism, and one Holy Ghost, and one Church, founded by **Christ **our Lord upon Peter, for (or from) an original and principle of unity.” It is the unity with Peter and his successors that is spoken of here.

And consider St. Cyprian, who wrote "…Certainly the rest were as Peter was, but primacy is given to Peter and one Church and one chair is shown…

And from the Council of Nicaea 325 AD: Canon XXXIX “Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all…”

And St. Augustine who wrote: “The Roman Church, in which the Primacy of the Apostolic See has always been in force.” and “Peter … head of the Apostles, doorkeeper of heaven and foundation of the Church.” and “To be unwilling to give primacy to the Roman Church either stems from the utmost impiety or from rash arrogance.”

And from Pope St. Innocent I who wrote; “As often as a principle of faith is ventilated, I am of the opinion that all our brethren and fellow-bishops ought not to refer **save to Peter, **that is, to the author of their name and dignity.”

Yes, the Pope and all the Bishops operate on a basis of collegiality, yes, in many ways Bishop and Pope are equals. Yes, we (all Christians) are all Church not the stuctures, strictures and formality. But our unity is in Christ and the Church He founded, under the leadership He established. That unity, testified to by scripture, the early Church in practice, the writings of the Church Fathers and the continuity of time from Peter’s confession to Pope Benedict VXI is found in the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Schisms, Orthodox or Protestant do not change that. Schisms though, offer the perfect example of the real need to have a spiritual leader working in communion with all the Bishops to keep the Church unified in its beliefs and practices.

 

[Mystophilus]

YADA:

I never said that Eliahkim was evil nor did I say that Isaiah made that case. You read Isaiah and most of scripture like you read Origen, selectively. Eliahkim was installed into his office to replace the previous Prime Minister, who was removed for his wickedness.

Ah, so we have reached the petty insults stage. It must be my lack of Catholic doctrine which causes my failure in understanding the necessity for this.

However, you mentioned Peter and “that other prime minister” and, because we had been talking about Peter and Eliakim, I assumed that you meant Eliakim, not Shebna.

Shebna is never described as evil, either. He is described as a ‘disgrace’ and then removed from his post. While we might assume that this is the basis for his demotion, what happens in v. 25 is more than mere demotion: Eliakim is to ‘give way’ and ‘break off’ and ‘fall’, and ‘all the glory of his father’s house’ with him. Thus, it is not reasonable to assume that Eliakim is any less disgraceful than Shebna. The same must apply to Peter, if Jesus is referring to the whole passage.

This is why I doubt very much that anything in Isaiah 22 other than v. 22 is being referred to by Jesus in Mt 16.

The fact that all Bishops, particular to their role as shepherds and all who confess that Jesus is Lord, the Messiah, God are rocks upon which the Church is built does not take away from the leadership role that is attached to the Chair of Peter and his successors.

Did I say that it did? I do not know what exactly it is that you are arguing against, here, but it is not my words.

What I said was, “the Fathers said lots of things.” Some of those things included references to Peter’s importance.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating, however no infractions have yet occured. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Also, remember than in an online discussion it is often difficult to determine tone and inflection. Please afford every benefit of the doubt to your fellow posters.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,

Ferdinand Mary

 

[Mystophilus]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating, however no infractions have yet occured. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Also, remember than in an online discussion it is often difficult to determine tone and inflection. Please afford every benefit of the doubt to your fellow posters.

Please accept my apologies.

I think that I am done here.

Pace, Yada.

 

[mercygate]

ChrisR246:

In one of the Catholic.com tracts, Karl Keating explains that the claim

petra = big rock while petros = little stone

is valid for Attic Greek but in Koine Greek the two words are synonomous. He even notes a Protestant Greek scholar.

Does anyone know of an online, neutral source that supports this - it would make online apologetics a little more powerful, IMO.

Do a search on these forums for Petros/Petra and check out earlier work. Look particularly for a link to itsjustdave1988’s blog where he quotes a dozen Protestant scholars, who debunk this nonsense.

 

[YADA]

Mystophilus,

Please accept my appologies, I did not mean any “petty insult” and do not think I resorted to any name calling. If you took it as such, it was unintended. Also, Catholic Doctrine requires charity and respect, which I attempt to afford but in this case perhaps I lapsed. Mea Culpa.

Please note that I was only trying to grasp why you accept the writings from the early fathers that discuss a more universal understanding of certan terms and theology while neglecting thoses same fathers writing that clearly speak to an Apostolic (on going) leadership role through the ‘Chair’ of Peter. Because I do not disagree with you on any point except where you negate the Petrine leadership of the Church.

I do not see the same conflict as you do. It is not an “Either / Or” but a “Both / And”. This is true, especially when all of Scripture, Tradition, history and the writings of early christians is taken as a whole.

I applogise for the frustration I caused you. Just know from my part, I took no offense, and was enjoying a spirited debate. I hope we will correspond on other issues around the forums,

The Peace of Christ be with You, Mystophilus!