Please help me respond to this

[hoser]

I am in a discussion on another forum about Jesus selecting Peter as the leader of His Church. This is a response that I got, can you help me respond?

"
Well, hoser, I’m impressed by your explanations of the Greek and Aramaic. But I’m still troubled by the masculine petros vs. the feminine petra. Yes, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but isn’t it possible that when Jesus spoke to Peter Jesus addressed him as Kepha, presumably masculine, and used a feminine word for “on this stone”? After all, why would the gospel writer use the feminine at that point? As I’m sure you know, in ancient languages (Greek and Latin, at least), abstract “things” were in the feminine, and concrete things were masculine or neuter.

I believe just before Jesus spoke, Peter told Jesus that he believed He was the Chris. I had read this passage as Jesus saying “And you are Peter, and on this stone [your expression of faith, identifying me as Christ (and a play on words with the masculine petros)] I will found my church.”

Why didn’t the gospel writer simply keep the masculine, if petros and petra were synonyms?"

Thank you

 

[dumspirospero]

Answered in another thread…here is the link

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=24978&highlight=petros

The following is excerpted from the article
“Peter the Rock” by Jimmy Akin

“One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the “rock” that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the “small stone” Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the “large rock” (petra) of Jesus.

What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get “Cephas”)—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—“You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”—should be decisive for our interpretation.

Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”

No two ways about it. Peter is the rock.”

Full text ishere.

 

[Exporter]

Peter becomes Head of the Apostles. In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter’s precedence among the Apostles. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).

By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts. (cf. “Stimmen aus MariaLaach”, I, 1896,129 sqq.; “Theologie und Glaube”, II, 1910,842 sqq.).

 

[TNT]

**The prot professes to let scripture “interprete” scripture. ** Ok then
maybe the prot is correct.
Ask him to find all the occasions of “petra” in the NT where it means stone.
Then ask him to find all the occasions of “lithos or lithoi” in the NT when a stone is refered to.
Then go to the predonderance of the evidence, including Jn 21.
In that place does the Greek translate only as “tend” my sheep or does it point to “rule” my sheep.(see Rev)
Try these sites where they may fit in your apologetic.
drbo.org/chapter/50021.htm
catholicapologetics.net/default.htm
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=635
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=687
users.stargate.net/~elcore/truth1.htm
But, I warn you that most of these prots have only one purpose: Deny The True Church of Christ.They are therefore satanic in inspiration.
Period.
They have no desire to find the truth, but only to debate, and pull the weak sheep out of the pasture to feed on loco weed. Unless they are publishing your responses in public and keeping them there, don’t waste your time.

Good Luck
I have one other site, but it is down for maintenance:

cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/peter.htm

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Basically he is just saying that he can interpret Scripture differently. He and hundereds of other denominations. What else is new? What he can’t do is show Peter as the rock of the Church is an unreasonable interpretation. It all comes down to whose authority do you accept? Christ’s one, holy and apostolic Church, or some internet dweeb with an axe to grind?

Scott

 

[hoser]

I thank you all for your quick responses, this site is such a great resource! Let me include my original post in this thread in which the person is questioning.

"Your interpretation of the Greek language is incorrect. I understand though, because that is how you have been trained by anti-Catholics. Believe me; I have heard your attempt at changing the actual meaning of Mat 16:18. Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” The Koine Greek word for stone is lithos, so if Jesus had meant Peter is the stone like you say, lithos is the term Jesus would have used. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

I go on. Jesus renamed Simon into the Greek word “Petros” with is also the Aramaic word “Kepha” or “Cephas” in our English Bibles, which means Rock. Remember, Jesus and everyone in the time of Jesus spoke Aramaic. “Then Andrew brought Simon to meet Jesus. Looking intently at Simon, Jesus said, “You are Simon, the son of John-but you will be called Cephas” (which means Peter or Rock)” Jn 1:42 In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha. So what Jesus said to Simon is correctly translated to this, ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’ The Aramaic interpretation of “Cephas” or “Kepha” is ONLY Rock and not stone because the Aramaic translation of stone is evna.

Yes, Jesus as is God in the Old Testament is also referred to as the Rock, but this does not mean that Jesus could not also name Simon as Rock. Jesus (the Rock) and His Church are one since His Church is the bride and He is the groom. Therefore, Jesus is naming Peter “Rock”, one with himself. Jesus is unquestionably the “Rock”, however, the Rock in a mystical marriage, unites His bride (the Church), to himself. Simon was given the name “Rock” and whoever hears the Rock Peter is hearing the Rock who is Christ; whoever rejects the Rock who is Peter, rejects the Rock Christ and the One who sent him, the Father.

In Mat 16:19 It was to Peter and only to Peter that Jesus promised nothing less that “the keys of the kingdom heaven”. In addition, look at the entirety of Mat 16:15-19. Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes this passage in Isaiah almost for verbatim. It is clear here what Jesus is intending. Jesus is raising up Peter to be the father figure or leader of His Church and to lead and guide the flock. Jn 21:15-17

 

[hoser]

I wish I could fit everything in one post! Here is the rest.

"Wait, there’s more. In Jn 1:42 Jesus changed Simon to Peter (Rock) because the meaning of the name at that time was very important. Jesus would not change his name for no reason. This would ONLY have been done because this person was very important in the eyes of God. Here are some examples of God changing the names of Abram and Jacob.

“What’s more, I am changing your name. It will no longer be Abram; now you will be known as Abraham, for you will be the father of many nations.” Gen 17:5

“Your name will no longer be Jacob, the man told him. “It is now Israel, because you have struggled with both God and men and have won.” **Gen 32:28 **

Abram was nobody; Abraham was the father of many nations. Jacob was a cheater, Israel was the Prince of God. Simon became Rock (Peter) who is the Rock of the Church of Jesus. As I stated above, Jesus would not have Changed Simon’s name for no reason. Don’t forget, the New Testament is hidden in the Old, while the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

“I myself will tend my sheep and cause them to lie down in peace, says the Sovereign Lord.”
Ez 34:15 Now this one a couple of verses later. “And I will set one Shepard over them, even my servant David. He will feed them and be a Shepard to them.” Ez 34:23 So, he who is faithful to David or his successors belongs to the people of God, and he who is not faithful to David or his successors does not belong to the people of God, even if he is a Jew born in Jerusalem.

Jesus did the same with Peter. In Jn 21:15-17 Jesus tells Peter three times to either feed His lambs or take care of His sheep. The sheep that Jesus is referring to are His sheep, His Christian followers and He asks Peter to feed them and take care of them. So like the example of David in the Old Testament, he who is faithful to Peter or his successors belongs to the Church of Christ and he who is not loyal to Peter or his successors does not belong to the Church of Christ even if he knows the entire Bible by heart.

“At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe.” Acts 15:7 Who was chosen? Peter. And who did the choosing? God!"

I borrowed some of my information from Karl Keating’s writings, but now how do I further explain his question regarding the masculine and feminine words of petros vs. petra? Thank you much.

 

[TNT]

hoser:

…but now how do I further explain his question regarding the masculine and feminine words of petros vs. petra? Thank you much.

If the person does not accept even the testimony of history, his own peers, fellow prot scholars, then
associate with someone who has a functioning brain instead of a functioning agenda!
Like I said, most of these prot “seekers” are in satanic captivity. You have to find the ones who are not yet in that condition, and dialogue with them. So, first find a suitable subject BEFORE you make them your apologetic object.
His reason for not accepting any proof, or all the overwhelming proofs as a whole is that he would HAVE TO become Roman Catholic, like Keating and Akins did.
So his entire thesis is to AVOID becoming a Catholic, not seeking the Truth. BIG difference.
When you fish and hook into a tree limb under the surface, do you:

1. Realize it for what it is and cut bait? Recast your line?
2. Continue into the night believing that you can still defeat this “fish” with a little more struggle?
   If you are not hooked into a fish, why deny that?
   Find a fish first, then bring him into the boat. He may struggle, but you will prevail and another convert is in the Ark.
   God Bless

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I say this many times: these guys usually come from a tradition that says the Bible is perspicatious–that is, it is so abundantly clear that not only can anyone pick it up and understand it (which I believe one can mostly), but also arrive at authoritative interpretations.

But observe what happens when we get to this passage: Perspicuity vanishes as these folk call in an army of scholars that require ten pages of pointy-headed wrangling over one word all in a vain attempt to prove that Peter as the rock is not even a possibility.

This is interesting also because Catholic layman are constantly made fun of as being forbidden to interperet Scripture. Yet from this scenario, I think it is evident that the naysayers are in fact being the more rigid and dogmatic about interpretation. This is inevitable when one has hitched his wagon to the man-made, incoherent Bible-alone proposition.

Scott

 

[Church_Militant]

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/firework2.gif http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/firework2.gif

Good Job !

Happy New Year All!!!​

 

[TNT]

Scott Waddell:

I say this many times: these guys usually come from a tradition that says the Bible is perspicatious–that is, it is so abundantly clear that not only can anyone pick it up and understand it (which I believe one can mostly), but also arrive at authoritative interpretations.

But observe what happens when we get to this passage: Perspicuity vanishes as these folk call in an army of scholars that require ten pages of pointy-headed wrangling over one word all in a vain attempt to prove that Peter as the rock is not even a possibility.

This is interesting also because Catholic layman are constantly made fun of as being forbidden to interperet Scripture. Yet from this scenario, I think it is evident that the naysayers are in fact being the more rigid and dogmatic about interpretation. This is inevitable when one has hitched his wagon to the man-made, incoherent Bible-alone proposition.Scott

Bunker buster response … BBR!
http://www.geocities.com/shangrala_.../www.geocities.com/shangrala_shangy/Hulk1.gif

 

[Newman60]

Church Militant:

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/firework2.gif

Good Job !

Happy New Year All!!!​

Boy do I agree with you. A thread like this one can be so enlightening and so helpful. What a wonderful resource this is.
Newman60

 

[Lorarose]

People have allowed the issue of masculine and feminine forms of the same word to cloud the meaning of this passage.

For example…let’s say we want to name a child after John the Baptist. A boy is born - we name him “John” or- a girl is born and we name her “Johnna” or “Gianna”. Have the different forms of the same name changed the meaning of the name?

We see similar things in the romance languages -say spanish.
Words ending in “O” are “masculine” Words ending in “A” are “feminine”. The endings of some words are changed according to the words they describe. For ex…
A nice boy - Un chico simpatico
A nice girl - Una chica simpatica.
The fact that “simpatico” and “simpatica” have different endings does not change the meaning of the word!
I’m no expert in Greek but I suspect the situation is the same here.​

Besides - the catholic interpretation of this passage makes so much more logical sense.

Catholic…(paraphrased)"you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…
I will give the key to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Protestant …(paraphrased) "you are a puny little rock, and upon this puny little rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the key to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The other statements Jesus made in this passage just don’t jibe with the protestant version.