Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[Ignatius]

Psalm45:9:

But wait a minute, then that would mean You are stone and on this stone I will build my church. Making Peter’s faith meerly a stone, nothing significant.

First, it was spoken in Aramaic, not Greek. Secondly, you have to consider that the Greek translation would have to account for the gender of the words. Greek words have feminine and masculine endings, Petros would be the masculine form. (It would have been an insult to call Simon bar Jomah by the feminine form.)
Finally, even if what you said was true, One who is it’s corner stone is the one who has the authority.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

I found here that St. Augustine definently believed in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Yep, as Augustine said: “Rome has spoken. The matter is settled.”

 

[michaelgazin]

to the “You are Petros and on this Petros” argument, such an argument is untenable. Petra was the obvious translation from the word Kepha. There is no record of anyone having the name Petros before Peter himself. Being that petra is the obvious translation from kepha, it immediately applies to all places where kepha is used. The only change that is necessary, is to make the name masculine since it was never used as a name before. The author argues the name should have then changed in both places to avoid confusion, but there was no confusion for 1500 years.

The first petra was changed to petros for masculine reasons. The second petra would only need to be changed petros to avoid confusion, however being that there was no confusion at the time, such a change was unnecessary, and illogical.

 

[aussie_stockman]

You want to know why this petra/petros thing has been debated for all these centuries?

It’s because … well… it’s just so danged DEBATABLE… hehehehe

I’m a “protestant” (I guess), although it’s OK with me if Jesus said to Simon “…I’m going to build my church on you”.

After all, Eph 2:19-20 says “19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…”

Peter may very well have been the “rock” in “…upon this rock…”, but according to Eph 2:20, he apparantly wasn’t the ONLY “rock” on which the church would be built. I mean, it looks like Jesus could have said “…Andrew, Matthew, James (et al)… I’m going to build my church on you…”, because according to Eph 2:20, thats exactly what happened… (no, I don’t mean to say that Jesus ever SAID that… I mean, it happened that the church was built on ALL the apostles, with Jesus as the cornerstone).

From a strictly “linguistics” perspective, the traditional Catholic position requires a bit of “linguistic wrangling” in order to make it true. BUT - that’s NOT to say that it ISN’T true…

But, the “protestant” view that “you are petros, and upon this petra…” refers to two different things, is just a tad simpler. It doesn’t require so much linguistic calesthetics…

shrug For me, none of it matters, really. I met Jesus personally. God revealed him to me as the Christ. But God has never “revealed” anything to me at all about “Peter”, so the question of “Peter the rock” is just a great “intellectual exercise” for me.

But, consider this scenario:

Simon - a big, burly guy (whom we called Rock) - comes staggering in, single-handedly carrying a 300-pound chunk of granite. He plops it down with a thud, and says to Jesus “there it is… just like you wanted it… and you’re the boss”. And Jesus says “… and you’re Rock, and upon this rock I will carve my name”…

Which rock was Jesus going to carve his name on?

 

[ahs]

But, consider this scenario:

Simon - a big, burly guy (whom we called Rock) - comes staggering in, single-handedly carrying a 300-pound chunk of granite. He plops it down with a thud, and says to Jesus “there it is… just like you wanted it… and you’re the boss”. And Jesus says “… and you’re Rock, and upon this rock I will carve my name”…

Which rock was Jesus going to carve his name on?

That scenario isn’t what happened between Jesus and Peter. Jesus did not say to Simon, “bring me a rock to carve my name on.” Jesus said, you, Simon, are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Jesus did not say, “your Faith is the rock upon which I will build my Church”. Jesus said, you, Simon, are the Rock upon which I will build my Church.

Think back to Moses. God intriduces Himself for the first time by name…to Moses…thus establishing a personal relationship with His people that Moses will lead. Fast forward a bit…Moses on top of the mountain…God thundering, carving His Law on stone…what did Moses come down from that mountain with? 3 things:
1 - the Law written on the tablets
2 - the Law spoken to him orally by God which was now written in his heart
3 - the authority to teach that Law and to lead God’s people…a visible group, a visible Church…and this authority given to him alone and passed down only to whom he laid hands upon.

Fast forward to Jesus and Simon Peter. “Who do you say that I am” (Remember “I am” from God and Moses?) Peter now proclaims who Jesus is…establishing that personal relationship…not just that he knew who Jesus is…but he knows by Name (if you think it doesn’t matter to know someone by their name vs. just in person…try calling your best friend a different name next time you visit). And then, what does Christ give Peter? He makes him the foundation of the Church…“upon this rock I shall build my Church”. And it is a visible Chruch…we see clearly a visible Church in action in the entire book of Acts. He also gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom, and to the Apostels (and the Apostels alone) the authority to bind and loose. What does this Church have? 3 things:
1 - the Law written in scrolls
2 - the Law taught to them orally by Christ, now written in their hearts
3 - the authority to teach that Law and to lead Christ’s Church…a visible group, a visible Chruch…this authority granted to no one other than those to whom Christ gave it and to whom those Apostles passed it down by the laying of hands.

 

[aussie_stockman]

That scenario isn’t what happened between Jesus and Peter. Jesus did not say to Simon, “bring me a rock to carve my name on.” Jesus said, you, Simon, are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Jesus did not say, “your Faith is the rock upon which I will build my Church”. Jesus said, you, Simon, are the Rock upon which I will build my Church.

Think back to Moses. God intriduces Himself for the first time by name…to Moses…thus establishing a personal relationship with His people that Moses will lead. Fast forward a bit…Moses on top of the mountain…God thundering, carving His Law on stone…what did Moses come down from that mountain with? 3 things:
1 - the Law written on the tablets
2 - the Law spoken to him orally by God which was now written in his heart
3 - the authority to teach that Law and to lead God’s people…a visible group, a visible Church…and this authority given to him alone and passed down only to whom he laid hands upon.

Fast forward to Jesus and Simon Peter. “Who do you say that I am” (Remember “I am” from God and Moses?) Peter now proclaims who Jesus is…establishing that personal relationship…not just that he knew who Jesus is…but he knows by Name (if you think it doesn’t matter to know someone by their name vs. just in person…try calling your best friend a different name next time you visit). And then, what does Christ give Peter? He makes him the foundation of the Church…“upon this rock I shall build my Church”. And it is a visible Chruch…we see clearly a visible Church in action in the entire book of Acts. He also gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom, and to the Apostels (and the Apostels alone) the authority to bind and loose. What does this Church have? 3 things:
1 - the Law written in scrolls
2 - the Law taught to them orally by Christ, now written in their hearts
3 - the authority to teach that Law and to lead Christ’s Church…a visible group, a visible Chruch…this authority granted to no one other than those to whom Christ gave it and to whom those Apostles passed it down by the laying of hands.

Hey, AHS -

this is some good info regarding Moses, etc… I’m gonna have to ponder this, but rest assurred, I’ll be pondering it…

As far as my “scenario” goes, yeh, OK, I’ll go along and say “it’s not exactly what happened”…

But, I’m still troubled by that “scene” in Matt 16:18…

You see, when Peter said “I say you are the Christ…”, he was saying “I say you are The Rock…”. I mean, 1 Corinth 10 says “I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

This “Yaweh = Rock = Christ” connection was firmly a part of the Jewish/Christian mindset, and Paul is merely stating a very Jewish viewpoint, which starts with “God is the Rock of my Salvation”, then goes further to say “Christ and God are equals”… Hence, Christ is the Rock of my Salvation. That whole “God is my Rock” thing is a common theme in the O.T. In fact, it’s almost inescapble. So, Paul is merely echoing a VERY commonly held belief, and making it clear that Christ = God = Rock of Salvation.

So, when Peter said “you are the Christ”, he was saying “you are The Rock of My Salvation”. That was the Jewish understanding of “Christ, Messiah”.

Now, I feel certain you yourself have run across O.T. scriptures where God is spoken of as being “the Rock”, or “my Rock”, etc, etc, so i won’t bother listing a bunch here.

AND - I’m going to say this, too: What I’m saying above is NOT intended either as “argumentative” or to “disprove” anything you’re saying at all… I’m asking for your thoughts on what I’ve said… My ears are open…

 

[in_servitude]

This “Yaweh = Rock = Christ” connection was firmly a part of the Jewish/Christian mindset, and Paul is merely stating a very Jewish viewpoint, which starts with “God is the Rock of my Salvation”, then goes further to say “Christ and God are equals”… Hence, Christ is the Rock of my Salvation. That whole “God is my Rock” thing is a common theme in the O.T. In fact, it’s almost inescapble. So, Paul is merely echoing a VERY commonly held belief, and making it clear that Christ = God = Rock of Salvation.

From what I understand, something that was uncommon (or actually, not done at all) was calling any person, “Rock”. Jesus calls Simon, “Rock”. How does that factor into your thinking?

 

[aussie_stockman]

From what I understand, something that was uncommon (or actually, not done at all) was calling any person, “Rock”. Jesus calls Simon, “Rock”. How does that factor into your thinking?

Not sure, really. I mean, God is referred to as Petra. Simon was referred to as Petros. So, right now, I’m not sure how I feel about that…

 

[in_servitude]

Not sure, really. I mean, God is referred to as Petra. Simon was referred to as Petros. So, right now, I’m not sure how I feel about that…

Everything I’ve seen about Petra/Petros is all based on Greek grammar gender rules. And, I understand the Aramaic grammar around Kepha to not require the same modification.

Regardless - Jesus calls Simon, “Rock”. That was not done before - from what I understand.

 

[Porknpie]

Everything I’ve seen about Petra/Petros is all based on Greek grammar gender rules. And, I understand the Aramaic grammar around Kepha to not require the same modification.

Regardless - Jesus calls Simon, “Rock”. That was not done before - from what I understand.

I love the geographical context. Christ and Peter were standing in front of a rock cliff, 200 feet high and 500 feet long. Thats why the location, Ceasarea Philippi is mentioned in the bible. And, the rock is still there! This rock cliff was days walking into gentile lands. They had to really travel to get there so it was no accident… This clearly sets the seen when Christ calls him Rock. He did not mean pebble and the people reading the Gospel in the early church readily understood he meant ROCK as in the Big kind.

 

[ahs]

Hey, AHS -

this is some good info regarding Moses, etc… I’m gonna have to ponder this, but rest assurred, I’ll be pondering it…

As far as my “scenario” goes, yeh, OK, I’ll go along and say “it’s not exactly what happened”…

But, I’m still troubled by that “scene” in Matt 16:18…

You see, when Peter said “I say you are the Christ…”, he was saying “I say you are The Rock…”. I mean, 1 Corinth 10 says “I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

This “Yaweh = Rock = Christ” connection was firmly a part of the Jewish/Christian mindset, and Paul is merely stating a very Jewish viewpoint, which starts with “God is the Rock of my Salvation”, then goes further to say “Christ and God are equals”… Hence, Christ is the Rock of my Salvation. That whole “God is my Rock” thing is a common theme in the O.T. In fact, it’s almost inescapble. So, Paul is merely echoing a VERY commonly held belief, and making it clear that Christ = God = Rock of Salvation.

So, when Peter said “you are the Christ”, he was saying “you are The Rock of My Salvation”. That was the Jewish understanding of “Christ, Messiah”.

Now, I feel certain you yourself have run across O.T. scriptures where God is spoken of as being “the Rock”, or “my Rock”, etc, etc, so i won’t bother listing a bunch here.

AND - I’m going to say this, too: What I’m saying above is NOT intended either as “argumentative” or to “disprove” anything you’re saying at all… I’m asking for your thoughts on what I’ve said… My ears are open…

Wonderful observation! And I had not thought of this before. And now it even more solidifies what Christ says to Peter. Peter acknowledges Christ as the Rock of Salvation…and then Christ says, you, Peter, are the Rock. Christ just made Peter the earthly representative of Christ…Christ the Shepherd, the Head of His Church, and Peter the Foundation upon which the Church shall be built and to whom, alone, the Keys of the Kingdom are given. Christ the architect, as it were, and Peter the general contractor (with the only set of keys to the building that were given out) representing the architect (for lack of a better example).

Don’t get hung up on the “Petra” bit. Christ didn’t speak to Peter in Greek (recall Christ’s language when he called out from the Cross). When the Scriptures were translated into Greek, the masculine form of the Greek work for rock was used to prevent from giving Peter a feminine name. The Aramaic word for Rock has no gender association.

 

[aussie_stockman]

To all who have (very courtesly) been responding to my earlier posts…

I don’t want to do a bunch of “qoutes” here, but I do want to say “thank you” (first of all) for the thoughts and comments. So far, I have seen some good info that warrants good consideration.

I really do NOT want to start a “debate” at all, because I realize there are two sides to a debate - but - I’d like to just touch on the Petros - petra thing, just to get y’alls (name removed by moderator)ut…

I’ve been reading info on jimmyakin.com (Jimmy Akin), and on one hand, he provides some good info regarding Petros - petra. He has an article called “The Petrine Fact” (if I remember correctly) in which he makes his “case”.

But, I googled for something like “petros petra kepha” and found another site, and this other site just seems to talk about the “language” aspects, and basically says that a lot of what Akin says (some of which has been basically repeated here) is just “conjecture”.

Now, I’m proceeding from the notion that, long ago, there were some pretty smart guys that talked a BUNCH, and came up with the “Catholic position”. They weren’t a bunch of intellectual slouches. So, I don’t think the “Catholic position” should just be ignored (and that’s why I’m here… I’m investigating).

But - I’m still “stuck” on the Petros - petra thing, because IF (and if, and if) Jesus was talking about two different things, then it makes a difference. (of course, I’m sure all you guys know that this is the heart of the Catholic/Protestant debate). I’m NOT looking to have that debate here.

But, if some of you will just go check out these links, and comment on them, I would appreciate it (because this is other info, besides Jimmy Akin, that I’ve been reading):

freetowne.com/pppk/assertions.php?next=PetraPetrosUsedSynonymously.html?1339784304

freetowne.com/pppk/assertions.php?next=KephasTranslatedPetraButMasculinized.html?1339785664

It’s actually good to “follow the links” in this guys web pages… But I thought the two above were good starting points…

Your thoughts will be appreciated… and, after this, I think I will move on to a few other topics besides the “name” stuff. There have been some very good posts that may, in fact, be more relevant, and worth more discussion… (ie, stuff posted earlier about Moses, etc…)

 

[ahs]

…But, if some of you will just go check out these links, and comment on them, I would appreciate it (because this is other info, besides Jimmy Akin, that I’ve been reading):

freetowne.com/pppk/assertions.php?next=PetraPetrosUsedSynonymously.html?1339784304

freetowne.com/pppk/assertions.php?next=KephasTranslatedPetraButMasculinized.html?1339785664

Much of what he writes is over my head, but I think I get the gist of it. He’s basically pointing out that there is not hard evidence to prove beyond a doubt that, only relying on the text, Christ calls Peter the Rock, one in the same as the Rock upon which He will build His Church. A moot point in my opinion. We aren’t supposed to rely solely on the text. Christ gave His Authority to the Church, who alone can correctly interpret and teach the Word (part of which they wrote for us and compiled into the NT) and it’s issues like these that remind us of that. The Christians understood Peter to be the Rock, one in the same as the Rock upon which Christ built His Church. The explanations support that, but they don’t actually “need” to.

For all the claims of “no evidence” the author makes, he provides none himself to the contrary. When in doubt, go to the Authority that Christ has established…the Church. And if you aren’t sure which Church that is…find the one that teaches the same things that the Christians taught from the very beginning.

There actually is an older thread here where a poster provided a large number of references to the “rock” words in the OT and NT. If I can find that, I’ll link it in here.

ETA: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=424
There ya go…not sure if that helps or not…it gets over my head quickly into the thread.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hey there again aussie,

regarding ahs’s parallel between Moses an St. Peter, you may also want to check up on the parallel between the “Chair of Moses” (St. Matthew 23:2) and the “Chair of Peter” spoken of in the early Church.

Here is a brief article by Steve Ray:

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/ChairOfPeter.pdf

This is also interesting when understood in the light of Jesus’ parable of the vinedressers. It is found in the same Gospel which mentions the “Chair of Moses”, just 2 chapters before. In the parable, Jesus says that “He will bring those evil men to an evil end; and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen, that shall render him the fruit in due season.” (St. Matthew 21:41)* Here He speaks of authority being transferred from the Jews to “other husbandmen”, that is, the Church. (This transfer of authority Tim Staples pointed out in his debate with Steve Gregg.)

*Scripture citation taken from the online Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

 

[pablope]

Not sure, really. I mean, God is referred to as Petra. Simon was referred to as Petros. So, right now, I’m not sure how I feel about that…

Prior to the event on Matt 16…Jesus says this to Peter…look at what He calls Peter…his Aramaic name…Cephas…Rock:

John 1:42

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. **You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]). **

So, now here they come to Ceasar Philipi…and Jesus calls him Petros/Petra? Or would Jesus speak in Aramaic…and give Simon his new name…Cephas?

And in the culture of that time…names were important. Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names.

Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, signifying a change in status.

Look at these significant name changes in the Bible:

Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), God’s command…to be the Father of Nations

Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28)…God’s command…to be the Father of the Nation of Israel.

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

Just as Abraham and Israel were instruments of God for His purpose…Peter was the instrument through which His Church would be built.

 

[pablope]

You want to know why this petra/petros thing has been debated for all these centuries?

It’s because … well… it’s just so danged DEBATABLE… hehehehe

I’m a “protestant” (I guess), although it’s OK with me if Jesus said to Simon “…I’m going to build my church on you”.

**After all, Eph 2:19-20 says “19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…”

**
Which rock was Jesus going to carve his name on?

. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

 

[57Bill]

I guess I am a little different, maybe not.

Peter, not the impetuous one as depicted in the Gospels, but the one blessed in Matt 16:18 because of the confession, not of his flesh and mind but by the Holy Spirit.

It wasn’t until the Jewish celebration of Pentecost when he received his ‘fullness’ and ability to lead as Christ intended for him to lead by the Holy Spirit.

He was first apostle chosen by Jesus, mentioned most(?) in NT, was the best at leading the early church I believe by turning his outwardly impetuous desires to serve the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, inwardly, led by the Holy Spirit with as much vigor.

This semantic/grammatical/translation circus is sad on both sides of the fence. What is vastly more important is who Peter truly BECAME and to follow as best we can in his teachings and his faith.

 

[in_servitude]

I guess I am a little different, maybe not.

Peter, not the impetuous one as depicted in the Gospels, but the one blessed in Matt 16:18 because of the confession, not of his flesh and mind but by the Holy Spirit.

It wasn’t until the Jewish celebration of Pentecost when he received his ‘fullness’ and ability to lead as Christ intended for him to lead by the Holy Spirit.

He was first apostle chosen by Jesus, mentioned most(?) in NT, was the best at leading the early church I believe by turning his outwardly impetuous desires to serve the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, inwardly, led by the Holy Spirit with as much vigor.

This semantic/grammatical/translation circus is sad on both sides of the fence. What is vastly more important is who Peter truly BECAME and to follow as best we can in his teachings and his faith.

Given the timing of this event described in John 21:7-14, it seems to me like something to toss into the discussion.

7 So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea. 8 The other disciples came in the boat, for they were not far from shore, only about a hundred yards, dragging the net with the fish. 9 When they climbed out on shore, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three large fish. Even though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come, have breakfast.” And none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they realized it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came over and took the bread and gave it to them, and in like manner the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead.

This is showing Peter with some other-worldly capabilities. And, a net with some unique properties. 153 different species of large fish, all being landed by Peter. I remember being challenged by netting just 1 large fish. (I understand the “153” number was the known number of nations thought to exist at the time - not totally sure about that.)

 

[57Bill]

Given the timing of this event described in John 21:7-14, it seems to me like something to toss into the discussion.

This is showing Peter with some other-worldly capabilities. And, a net with some unique properties. 153 different species of large fish, all being landed by Peter. I remember being challenged by netting just 1 large fish. (I understand the “153” number was the known number of nations thought to exist at the time - not totally sure about that.)

Wow… didn’t know that, thanks!! Peter is also a real strong man! NOT that scripture has embellishment, yet why not have faith in it (153 fish diff. species) as true!?

Also the scene here regarding Peter’s love for Jesus and feeding and tending sheep and lambs (I can’t remember off my head exactly the verse) emphasizes/reinforces Peter’s destiny coming into fullness later.

 

[pablope]

Wow… didn’t know that, thanks!! Peter is also a real strong man! NOT that scripture has embellishment, yet why not have faith in it (153 fish diff. species) as true!?

Also the scene here regarding Peter’s love for Jesus and feeding and tending sheep and lambs (I can’t remember off my head exactly the verse) emphasizes/reinforces Peter’s destiny coming into fullness later.

Actually, prior to this, Peter’s role is confirmed here:

Mark 16…5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Here, an angel appearing as a boy, mentions by name, only Peter…and notice the name he uses…Peter/Cephas/Rock…not Simon…the name given to him by Jesus.

Keep in mind the siginificance of names in that time…and the significance of the name change…with the angle calling Simon by his new name…Peter/Cephas…even Heaven is now calling him Peter…a confirmation he has been forgiven for his denial of the Lord earlier…and a confirmation of the role Christ told him…to build His Church.