N
Nicea325
Guest
Easily! Jesus spoke Aramaic and kindly tell the author of the page to tell us Catholics how many Jewish men received the name Kepha?
- Status
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
wait a minute… Let’s all back up for just a moment…
(BTW - I’m here asking questions - NOT “protesting” anything at all)
And - I’ve been reading all this material (including stuff at the various links given), but there is one very fundamental question that I’ve got to ask…
Lets just say that NONE of us are trying to “support” an idea, one way or the other, but rather, are all looking at the scriptures without having any pre-determined “posture”.
(Please stick with me here, OK? I’m just trying to set up a “premise”):
OK – we see there are a lot of scriptures about Peter, and what he did, or said, etc. Thats good. That means he was (at least) a “notable character” in the gospel narratives.
BUT - as noteworthy of a character that he might have been (and, every group of people has it’s “noteworthy characters”) - there is never any clear statement that “Peter was then pronounced ‘leader of the church’” (as in, some type of formal “passing of the baton” thing)…
BUT - we DO see the scripture in Matt 16:18 - “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”
Now — If it were not for Matt 16:18, there really isn’t any reason to think that Peter was ever anything more than a “noteworthy character”. I mean, even if he DID have some “leadership qualities”, still, that is a long way from saying he was the “Vicar of Christ”.
The idea that Peter was pronounced “Vicar of Christ” starts with Matt 16:18. If you didn’t have Matt 16:18, you wouldn’t really have a “Vicar of Christ” argument to be made or supported.
So, in short, if Jesus never said “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”, there would be no reason at all to think that Peter was anything more than a “noteworthy character”. It is this scripture that gives creedence to the idea that Peter may have been something beyond merely a noteworthy character in the narrative.
So, here’s where I’m going with this:
Matt 16:18 - in and of itself - ("… you are Petros, and upon this petra…") is the key scripture.
Did the words “Petros” and “petra” refer to the same thing (Simon Peter)? If they did, then other scriptures would simply SUPPORT this reality, (but not PROVE it).
Did the words “Petros” and “petra” refer to two different things (ie, Peter and Christ)? If they did, then other scriptures - including the “keys of the kingdom” passage - have to be understood in the context accordingly.
So - basically - I’m still stuck. I’m not yet convinced that Petros and petra really referred to Simon Peter. I mean, I’ve seen a LOT of “theories” about how this might have been true, but so far, it all just looks like “theories” to me. In fact, I’ve seen some theories put across by Catholics that actually contradict other theories put across by Catholics, all in an attempt to show how Petros and petra were the “same thing”.
On the other hand, I see that the “protestant” position - that Petros and petra were two different things - as being tremendously simple to support.
So, I just need somebody out there to give me a clear picture on how Petros and petra were the same thing.
Anybody up for this one?
(BTW - I’m here asking questions - NOT “protesting” anything at all)
And - I’ve been reading all this material (including stuff at the various links given), but there is one very fundamental question that I’ve got to ask…
Lets just say that NONE of us are trying to “support” an idea, one way or the other, but rather, are all looking at the scriptures without having any pre-determined “posture”.
(Please stick with me here, OK? I’m just trying to set up a “premise”):
OK – we see there are a lot of scriptures about Peter, and what he did, or said, etc. Thats good. That means he was (at least) a “notable character” in the gospel narratives.
BUT - as noteworthy of a character that he might have been (and, every group of people has it’s “noteworthy characters”) - there is never any clear statement that “Peter was then pronounced ‘leader of the church’” (as in, some type of formal “passing of the baton” thing)…
BUT - we DO see the scripture in Matt 16:18 - “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”
Now — If it were not for Matt 16:18, there really isn’t any reason to think that Peter was ever anything more than a “noteworthy character”. I mean, even if he DID have some “leadership qualities”, still, that is a long way from saying he was the “Vicar of Christ”.
The idea that Peter was pronounced “Vicar of Christ” starts with Matt 16:18. If you didn’t have Matt 16:18, you wouldn’t really have a “Vicar of Christ” argument to be made or supported.
So, in short, if Jesus never said “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”, there would be no reason at all to think that Peter was anything more than a “noteworthy character”. It is this scripture that gives creedence to the idea that Peter may have been something beyond merely a noteworthy character in the narrative.
So, here’s where I’m going with this:
Matt 16:18 - in and of itself - ("… you are Petros, and upon this petra…") is the key scripture.
Did the words “Petros” and “petra” refer to the same thing (Simon Peter)? If they did, then other scriptures would simply SUPPORT this reality, (but not PROVE it).
Did the words “Petros” and “petra” refer to two different things (ie, Peter and Christ)? If they did, then other scriptures - including the “keys of the kingdom” passage - have to be understood in the context accordingly.
So - basically - I’m still stuck. I’m not yet convinced that Petros and petra really referred to Simon Peter. I mean, I’ve seen a LOT of “theories” about how this might have been true, but so far, it all just looks like “theories” to me. In fact, I’ve seen some theories put across by Catholics that actually contradict other theories put across by Catholics, all in an attempt to show how Petros and petra were the “same thing”.
On the other hand, I see that the “protestant” position - that Petros and petra were two different things - as being tremendously simple to support.
So, I just need somebody out there to give me a clear picture on how Petros and petra were the same thing.
Anybody up for this one?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Is Peter “Rock”, or is he only a “pebble”?wait a minute… Let’s all back up for just a moment…
(BTW - I’m here asking questions - NOT “protesting” anything at all)
And - I’ve been reading all this material (including stuff at the various links given), but there is one very fundamental question that I’ve got to ask…
Lets just say that NONE of us are trying to “support” an idea, one way or the other, but rather, are all looking at the scriptures without having any pre-determined “posture”.
(Please stick with me here, OK? I’m just trying to set up a “premise”):
OK – we see there are a lot of scriptures about Peter, and what he did, or said, etc. Thats good. That means he was (at least) a “notable character” in the gospel narratives.
BUT - as noteworthy of a character that he might have been (and, every group of people has it’s “noteworthy characters”) - there is never any clear statement that “Peter was then pronounced ‘leader of the church’” (as in, some type of formal “passing of the baton” thing)…
BUT - we DO see the scripture in Matt 16:18 - “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”
Now — If it were not for Matt 16:18, there really isn’t any reason to think that Peter was ever anything more than a “noteworthy character”. I mean, even if he DID have some “leadership qualities”, still, that is a long way from saying he was the “Vicar of Christ”.
The idea that Peter was pronounced “Vicar of Christ” starts with Matt 16:18. If you didn’t have Matt 16:18, you wouldn’t really have a “Vicar of Christ” argument to be made or supported.
So, in short, if Jesus never said “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”, there would be no reason at all to think that Peter was anything more than a “noteworthy character”. It is this scripture that gives creedence to the idea that Peter may have been something beyond merely a noteworthy character in the narrative.
So, here’s where I’m going with this:
Matt 16:18 - in and of itself - ("… you are Petros, and upon this petra…") is the key scripture.
Did the words “Petros” and “petra” refer to the same thing (Simon Peter)? If they did, then other scriptures would simply SUPPORT this reality, (but not PROVE it).
Did the words “Petros” and “petra” refer to two different things (ie, Peter and Christ)? If they did, then other scriptures - including the “keys of the kingdom” passage - have to be understood in the context accordingly.
So - basically - I’m still stuck. I’m not yet convinced that Petros and petra really referred to Simon Peter. I mean, I’ve seen a LOT of “theories” about how this might have been true, but so far, it all just looks like “theories” to me. In fact, I’ve seen some theories put across by Catholics that actually contradict other theories put across by Catholics, all in an attempt to show how Petros and petra were the “same thing”.
On the other hand, I see that the “protestant” position - that Petros and petra were two different things - as being tremendously simple to support.
So, I just need somebody out there to give me a clear picture on how Petros and petra were the same thing.
Anybody up for this one?
Non-Catholic Christians charge that Peter is not the “rock” because the Greek word used for “rock” in this verse means a little pebble. Right away, it is obvious from the very beginning, that there is a translation problem here. Scholars have determined that Matthew was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic, and was soon translated into Greek, so we have to go to the original written language to find the true meaning of this verse.
Peter was called “Cephas” or “Kepha(s)” in Aramaic, by Christ in Matthew 16:18, and it means a large massive stone or rock. Christ said this at Caesarea Philippi, the site of a large rock mass. See Matthew 16:13. The Aramaic word for a small stone or pebble is “evna”. “Kepha”, when translated to the Greek language means “Petra” (a large rock) or “Petros” (a small stone). However, unlike Aramaic words which have no gender, Greek words do have gender, and “Petra” is feminine. Translators from the Aramaic to the Greek, changed the word to the masculine gender or “Petros” because they were unwilling to assign a name with feminine gender to a man.
In Matthew 16:18, it is correct to say that Jesus would have said, “You are ‘Kepha’, and upon this ‘Kepha’, I will build My Church.” In Greek, it would translate to, “You are ‘Petros’, and upon this ‘Petra’, I will build My Church.” It was the translation of the Aramaic word, “Kepha” (Cephas), into the Greek language that caused the confusion among some who look upon Peter as not being called “rock”, but only a “pebble”.
Matthew 16:13, 18, John 1:42, 1Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Galatians 2:8-9
Detractors argue that Peter could not be the rock because GOD is, 2Samuel 22:2. Well, not only does Scripture call Peter the rock, but it also calls Abraham the rock, in Isaiah 51:1-2. Also, who is the Light of the World? Jesus Christ is in John 8:12, but yet the Disciples are in Matthew 5:14. The words “Rock” and “Light of the World” are not limited to describe GOD alone.
Hope that helps?
I
in_servitude
Guest
Since you’ve seen all the theories - then you discount the office that was handed to him. You discount the keys. And, the whole translation issue from Aramaic to Greek has been repeatedly covered, so you’re discounting that too.
You say that Jesus didn’t pronounce Peter as “leader of the Church”. This becomes an interesting choice - that since we would have made that declaration if we were Jesus, then Jesus would also have done that. Jesus could have just spoken his words in a certain way, and then we’d all be obedient and fall in line, I suppose.
I take it that the writings of the early church fathers on this are not interesting to someone looking for the Truth on the Rock. Is that correct?
P
pablope
Guest
wait a minute… Let’s all back up for just a moment…
rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
In short…you are looking at this verse from a tradition that denies Peter as a leader, a tradition that denies the leadership of the CC…that is why you come to these tortured interpretations and understanding of these passages.
Have you asked yourself…why go to such great length is resorted to by these who deny Pertine leadership?
After so much tortured, long winding attempts to come to such conclusion. What protestants try to do is to separate the peter and his faith…we do not…we take them both…peter and his faith are one and inseparable…when Jesus called Simon…Peter…He hitched Peter to Him.Anybody up for this one?
There are other parts of Scripture to look at:
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.
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.
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
Nicea325 - thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut… You’ve at least provided an answer to my question…
in_servitude and pablope - thanks also for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I think I’ll pass on what you’re saying for the time being… Maybe I’ll get back to it later, but in my earlier post, I merely meant to be doing what I said, which was to give a certain “premise”. I never said it was MY PERSONAL point of view. (However, it IS the point of view of many… but, I don’t care about that… I was just trying to get down to the “petros - petra” thing)
Now, concerning Niceas (name removed by moderator)ut…
That’s the first “sticking point” for me. I don’t have any problem imagining that the gospel may have, in fact, been written in Aramaic. But, the “kepha… kepha” thing may or may not be true. I mean, there are a LOT of different words that could have been used. Here’s a few from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL database):
'bn, 'bn (aben, abna): stone
gll, gll’ n.m. rock, stone; excrement
1 stone, rock . --(a) as material . (a.1) hewn stone --(b) large chunk of rock
2. stone stele
3. small round stones and stone-like objects . --(a) hailstone --(b) excrement (c) as an
ingredient --(d) small pieces of fibers
tynr, tnr’ n.m. flint, rock
You’re also saying that “kepha” means a large stone or rock. But here’s the definition of kepha from Jastrow’s Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature:
rock, stone, ball…; “which rock (when bored) will give forth water and which…”;
pearls, jewels; fire-balls; hail-stones; “…thou must remove these stones…”;
kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground);
weighed the stones;
precious stones, jewelry; amber; “has he jewelry suspended on it” (his opinion) ie, must his opinion be accepted?;
gave jewelry in trust; give me my jewelry back;
shore, border; like its shore; the Euphrates grows from (the waters coming down) its shores (not from rain); was hiding himself at the sea-shore; …the shores of… touched each other (the waters rising to the level of the shores;
Rashi: the arches of the ruined bridges, v. infra); arch, vault; bundle, sheaf
Now, Jastrow went through THOUSANDS of pages of Aramaic documents - practically everything that could be found at the time - to compile his lexicion… Most researchers consider it the finest Aramaic lexicion available…
So, the problem is that it appears that most every definition of kepha listed above has to do with “smallish” rocks… and, ummm… seashores… Kind of a weird word. But as far as “rocks” goes, it looks more like it’s talking about jewelry than a mighty crag.
You say “Aramaic words which have no gender”… But, both the CAL database (at http:.//cal1.cn.huc.edu/) and the Atour aramaic lexicion (atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=rock&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0) show “kepha” to be a feminine noun… So, Jesus called Simon bar Jonah “Kepha”, which was feminine. Evidently, that was no problem, though.
You say “Translators from the Aramaic to the Greek, changed the word to the masculine gender or “Petros” because they were unwilling to assign a name with feminine gender to a man.” - but, that theory has some real problems. “Petra” and “petros” are two different words in Greek. One is not a “masculine form” of the other. Petra refers (generally) to a “rock mass”, while “petros” is a smallish stone, like what a warrior might throw. SO - changing “petra” to “petros” changes the meaning of the word. Like changing “cara” (Spanish, for face) to “caro” (Spanish - for EXPENSIVE). You can’t just go changing words like that in a genderized language…
Heres the definitons of petra and petros, according to Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek-English Lexicon:
petra: A. rock; freq. of cliffs, ledges, etc. by the sea; free from rocks, of a beach; also, rocky peak or ridge - of Caucasus - of Parnassus - of the Acropolis
2. a hollow rock, i.e. a cave, cave in the rock with a double entrance, down to virgin rock,
3. mass of rock or boulder
4. stone as material
distd. from πετρος (q. v.), which is v.l. in X.l.c.; ??? shd. be read in S.Ph.272 ; the distn. is minimized by Gal.12.194.
petros: A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. ‘leave no stone unturned’; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed
So, basically, in “changing” petra to petros, Jesus would have been changing “a massive rock” to “a stone”… That doesnt make sense…
What I’m saying here is that I’m finding actual, very reputable lexicons that just don’t seem to “line up” with the explantion you offered. From what I’ve been able to discern, the lexicons I mentioned above are pretty much the “standard references” for Greek and Aramaic scholars… But, hey, what do I know? I’m still just investigating…
in_servitude and pablope - thanks also for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I think I’ll pass on what you’re saying for the time being… Maybe I’ll get back to it later, but in my earlier post, I merely meant to be doing what I said, which was to give a certain “premise”. I never said it was MY PERSONAL point of view. (However, it IS the point of view of many… but, I don’t care about that… I was just trying to get down to the “petros - petra” thing)
Now, concerning Niceas (name removed by moderator)ut…
OK, you’re saying that the gospel was originally written in Aramaic, AND, that the Aramaic would have said “kepha… kepha”…
That’s the first “sticking point” for me. I don’t have any problem imagining that the gospel may have, in fact, been written in Aramaic. But, the “kepha… kepha” thing may or may not be true. I mean, there are a LOT of different words that could have been used. Here’s a few from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL database):
'bn, 'bn (aben, abna): stone
- stone
- rock, stone as a material
- gem
- stone-like objects
- sev 13u etc mistakenly take to mean small building
- weight
gll, gll’ n.m. rock, stone; excrement
1 stone, rock . --(a) as material . (a.1) hewn stone --(b) large chunk of rock
2. stone stele
3. small round stones and stone-like objects . --(a) hailstone --(b) excrement (c) as an
ingredient --(d) small pieces of fibers
tynr, tnr’ n.m. flint, rock
- flint
- large rock
- rock, flint --(a) metaph.: flint-like substance, callous, hard surface
- rock
- idiomatic usages --(a) w. brq, hailstone Syr, . --(b) cornerstone Syr. --(c) meteorite,
meteor
You’re also saying that “kepha” means a large stone or rock. But here’s the definition of kepha from Jastrow’s Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature:
rock, stone, ball…; “which rock (when bored) will give forth water and which…”;
pearls, jewels; fire-balls; hail-stones; “…thou must remove these stones…”;
kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground);
weighed the stones;
precious stones, jewelry; amber; “has he jewelry suspended on it” (his opinion) ie, must his opinion be accepted?;
gave jewelry in trust; give me my jewelry back;
shore, border; like its shore; the Euphrates grows from (the waters coming down) its shores (not from rain); was hiding himself at the sea-shore; …the shores of… touched each other (the waters rising to the level of the shores;
Rashi: the arches of the ruined bridges, v. infra); arch, vault; bundle, sheaf
Now, Jastrow went through THOUSANDS of pages of Aramaic documents - practically everything that could be found at the time - to compile his lexicion… Most researchers consider it the finest Aramaic lexicion available…
So, the problem is that it appears that most every definition of kepha listed above has to do with “smallish” rocks… and, ummm… seashores… Kind of a weird word. But as far as “rocks” goes, it looks more like it’s talking about jewelry than a mighty crag.
You say “Aramaic words which have no gender”… But, both the CAL database (at http:.//cal1.cn.huc.edu/) and the Atour aramaic lexicion (atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=rock&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0) show “kepha” to be a feminine noun… So, Jesus called Simon bar Jonah “Kepha”, which was feminine. Evidently, that was no problem, though.
You say “Translators from the Aramaic to the Greek, changed the word to the masculine gender or “Petros” because they were unwilling to assign a name with feminine gender to a man.” - but, that theory has some real problems. “Petra” and “petros” are two different words in Greek. One is not a “masculine form” of the other. Petra refers (generally) to a “rock mass”, while “petros” is a smallish stone, like what a warrior might throw. SO - changing “petra” to “petros” changes the meaning of the word. Like changing “cara” (Spanish, for face) to “caro” (Spanish - for EXPENSIVE). You can’t just go changing words like that in a genderized language…
Heres the definitons of petra and petros, according to Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek-English Lexicon:
petra: A. rock; freq. of cliffs, ledges, etc. by the sea; free from rocks, of a beach; also, rocky peak or ridge - of Caucasus - of Parnassus - of the Acropolis
2. a hollow rock, i.e. a cave, cave in the rock with a double entrance, down to virgin rock,
3. mass of rock or boulder
4. stone as material
distd. from πετρος (q. v.), which is v.l. in X.l.c.; ??? shd. be read in S.Ph.272 ; the distn. is minimized by Gal.12.194.
petros: A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. ‘leave no stone unturned’; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed
So, basically, in “changing” petra to petros, Jesus would have been changing “a massive rock” to “a stone”… That doesnt make sense…
What I’m saying here is that I’m finding actual, very reputable lexicons that just don’t seem to “line up” with the explantion you offered. From what I’ve been able to discern, the lexicons I mentioned above are pretty much the “standard references” for Greek and Aramaic scholars… But, hey, what do I know? I’m still just investigating…
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay,if there are other terms for Kepha as you noted,then why didn’t Jesus just flat out use another term instead of Kepha? It is no different with those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist. Why didn’t Jesus use any set of Aramaic terms to say “represents” or this “symbolizes” my body. Jesus does not use such terms. Second, what you are forgetting is one small point: With a change of name comes a price. Third, how common was it to name a Jewish man Kepha, if it was just another ordinary name?
Bad example. I am fluent in Spanish and the word cara “face” is not the same word nor has the same meaning as “caro” as you pointed out. One word deals with human anatomy and the other with value,two different terms non related. I would not translate “cara” into “caro” because they are not same word or meaning. And it has nothing to do with the fact Spanish is genderized language. Case in point, how does one say in Spanish the phrase: The map.
El mapa. Map ends with an “a” and most would say: Hey! I thought if ended with the letter “a” it is feminine? Why the usage of “el” in the phrase" El mapa.
God Bless
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
Look, the scripture (in Greek) says “you are Petros, and upon this petra…” Now, we KNOW that Petros = Kepha, because John 1:42 supplies us with the translation. But we don’t KNOW what word was translated as “petra”. MAYBE it was kepha, maybe not. There are no Aramaic texts that say what Jesus said.
You miss my point entirely: I fully REALIZE that “cara” and “caro” are NOT the same word… AND NEITHER ARE PETROS AND PETRA.
Petros and petra are RELATED - in that they both have something to do with that stuff that the earth is largely made of, which is (speaking generically) “rock”… But, one is a FEMININE NOUN (petra), meaning “BIG rock”, and the other is a MASCULINE noun, meaning “LITTLE rock”.
My point remains the same: Change “cara” to “caro” and you end up with TWO DIFFERENT WORDS. And that EXACTLY what happens when you change petra to petros.
It’s NOT like the Greek word for male and female dog: σκυλί and σκύλα. These ARE masc and fem versions of the SAME WORD.
but petros and petra are NOT. Thats why the argument that “petros is the masculine form of petra” is simply not true. They are two different words, as different as caro and cara in Spanish. Thats why I said: “You can’t just go changing words like that in a genderized language…”
You can’t change cara to caro in Spanish, and you cant change petra to petros in Greek.
N
Nicea325
Guest
But your missing the bigger point here. Jesus spoke Aramaic as an everyday language,not Greek. Second of all, what many people do not understand,especially if they are only monolingual is the fact when one language is being translated to another, one cannot always translate word-for-word. Does that make sense?
I am constantly translating English into Spanish and many times one has to “tweak” certain words or phrases in order not to lose the original meaning. That is the whole point of translating: Translate without losing the meaning. It is not so much about what exact words to use but words that would be understood.
God Bless
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
So what if Jesus spoke Aramaic as an everyday language? That STILL doesn’t mean he said “…you are Kepha, and upon this kepha…”.
There is MORE THAN ONE WORD FOR ROCK in Aramaic. Get it?
Jesus COULD have said “…you are Kepha, and upon this shu’a…”
The fact is, neither you nor I have ANY factual knowledge of what Jesus “would have said” in Aramaic. You THINK he said “…you are Kepha, and upon this kepha…”, but there is absolutely no PROOF of that whatsoever…
Are you getting the gist of this yet?
NOBODY KNOWS what Jesus said in Aramaic. There ARE NO ORIGINAL ARAMAIC TEXTS OF MATTHEW AVAILABLE. see what I mean?
P
pablope
Guest
There is the syriac, which is closest to Aramaic.
So what if there not original aramaic texts left of the original? There are other clues…!
Look also at the context of the location of where these words were stated…at Ceasar Philippi…site of a massive rock…so would Jesus refer to a massive rock as a small pebble?
What would He use for a massive rock in Aramaic? For the benefit of the doubt…He did not use Kepha…He would have used any other aramaic word for Rock…does it detract from the fact that it is still a rock?
Besides…I am sure you read the parable of the mustard seed…it is the smallest seed…yet would grow into a massive tree…and I will give you the benefit of the doubt again…Jesus referred to a small rock, as an analogy…would He expect that small rock to remain a small rock…would he expect Peter or his faith to remain as they are…or, as evidenced by Peter’s actions…Peter and his faith would grow by leaps and bounds…like the mustard see…into a massive tree…into massive faith…aka massive rock…into the building of His Church?
And besides…our faith does not depend on the Matt16 alone. Now I wonder, why do you to such great lengths to disprove petros/petra? Does your belief or disbelief depend on it?
Why the hang up?
As I said…there are other clues…and Jesus’ actions have meanings.
If I came across matt 16, without any pretenses and say this:
Simon to Peter/Cephas/Rock…God/Jesus’ command…to build His Church.
This would compel me to investigate furthere…if there are parallels…and would discover the following:
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.
Then it would become clear to someone…that there was some meaning to the changing of the name…especially the commands that follow the name change.
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
Why the hang up?*
Well, OK… good question… “why the hang up”? OK, here’s the hangup…
If Jesus used two different words in Matt 16:18, then evidently He was talking about two different things… ESPECIALLY if the first word (Petros) means “little rock”, and the second word (whatever it was in Aramaic) meant “massive rock”…
I mean, if that’s the case, then Jesus was saying “…you are Little Rock, and upon this Huge Rock I will build my church”, which seems like it would be pretty indicitive that He was talking about two different things. I guess that’s the hang up.
I mean, IF Jesus was talking about two different things, then all the other “evidences” aren’t really “evidences” at all. I mean, IF Jesus was NOT saying He was going to build his church on Peter, then the whole Catholic argument falls apart.
So, that’s why the petros/petra thing is important. What if Jesus WASN’T saying “I’m going to build my church on YOU, Simon bar Jona”? If he wasn’t saying that, then there’s simply no case to be made…
Seems pretty important to me… shrug
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay,but I hope you are aware there are NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NT TEXT IN GREEK…how does that help your argument? So if nobody knows what Jesus said with certitude,then how can you even present such an argument when you are not sure yourself what Jesus said? How this argument in your favor? See what I mean?
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
Well, OK… yeh, you’re right. There aren’t any original Greek manuscripts either. But, there are plenty of Greek manuscripts, even if they aren’t original. And, the oldest one we’ve got in Greek (of Matthew) says that Jesus said “you are Petros, and upon this petra…”.
We don’t have ANY Aramaic texts at all…
So, all we got to work with is “petros… petra…”. That’s the best we can do. Are you saying we should just go ahead and ignore that, and substitute whatever words we THINK Jesus said?
I mean, if THATS what you’re thinking, then I think I’ll save this conversation with somebody else…
Otherwise, let’s just stick with what we’ve got, which is Jesus saying “petros… petra…”
It’s two different words.
BUT - I’ll tell you what: Let’s just say that Jesus said “kepha… kepha…”. Why then was that translated as “Petros… petra”?
The “Petros” is easy to figure out. The translation of Kepha = Petros is given to us in John 1:42…
SO - where did the “petra” come from? If the words “kepha… kepha…” were used, why wasn’t the Greek written as “Petros… Petros…”?
L
LionHeart777
Guest
regarding why ‘Petros… Petros…’ was not used, Jimmy Akin gives 3 possibilities:
Source: jimmyakin.com/why-petros-was-not-used-twice-in-matthew-1618 (accessed 6/23/2012)
His conclusion?
(Ibid.)
C
Crux_Sacra
Guest
Don’t you guys think the argument about Petros/petra is a little silly? I mean in John 1 Jesus clearly says Cephas, and there is a writer’s gloss which says it translates to Peter. Clearly, St.John, the Beloved Disciple, has just told us Jesus spoke Aramaic. Matthew 16:18 logically can have only the one meaning: that the Church will be built on Peter.
And it just sounds silly to me to say that Jesus called Peter a little rock and then said “and on this big rock I will build my Church,” while standing on an absolutely huge piece of rock at Caesarea Philippi. If that argument were true, I would have come to the conclusion that Jesus meant the rock on which he was standing, and not Peter or his faith; and I would also expect the next chapter to describe how Jesus constructed a building on said rock. After all, he was the son of Joseph the carpenter. But that is not what happened.
On top of that, Jesus has just blessed Peter and said that God the Father has revealed this to him. Why would he then go on to insult him by calling him an insignificant pebble? And further insult him by telling him that his Church would be built on something else? Why would Jesus humiliate Peter, and furthermore, why would Matthew make it a point to record it? And why, after humiliating him, would Jesus give him, if he is just a little rock, the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose? Saying that Jesus called Peter a little rock is just a silly argument. Matthew 16:18-19 is a threefold blessing of Peter, and clearly sets him apart from the other Apostles, whom Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom. They keys alone make him the prime minister.
I’m not trying to insult anyone who disbelieves that Peter is the rock Jesus spoke about. But even without getting into the specifics of Aramaic and Greek language, logic says that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built. It takes some serious mental straining to support any other argument.
We don’t have to have the original Gospel in Aramaic to remember how the language works. Or Greek, for that matter. When we are told numerous times by people writing in Greek that Jesus spoke Aramaic by giving examples, and when we are told that Jesus used the word Cephas by St. John, who was there when it was spoken, and when St. Paul, who knew St. Peter, calls St. Peter Cephas…it’s just foolish to argue otherwise.
†God Bless!
And it just sounds silly to me to say that Jesus called Peter a little rock and then said “and on this big rock I will build my Church,” while standing on an absolutely huge piece of rock at Caesarea Philippi. If that argument were true, I would have come to the conclusion that Jesus meant the rock on which he was standing, and not Peter or his faith; and I would also expect the next chapter to describe how Jesus constructed a building on said rock. After all, he was the son of Joseph the carpenter. But that is not what happened.
On top of that, Jesus has just blessed Peter and said that God the Father has revealed this to him. Why would he then go on to insult him by calling him an insignificant pebble? And further insult him by telling him that his Church would be built on something else? Why would Jesus humiliate Peter, and furthermore, why would Matthew make it a point to record it? And why, after humiliating him, would Jesus give him, if he is just a little rock, the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose? Saying that Jesus called Peter a little rock is just a silly argument. Matthew 16:18-19 is a threefold blessing of Peter, and clearly sets him apart from the other Apostles, whom Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom. They keys alone make him the prime minister.
I’m not trying to insult anyone who disbelieves that Peter is the rock Jesus spoke about. But even without getting into the specifics of Aramaic and Greek language, logic says that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built. It takes some serious mental straining to support any other argument.
We don’t have to have the original Gospel in Aramaic to remember how the language works. Or Greek, for that matter. When we are told numerous times by people writing in Greek that Jesus spoke Aramaic by giving examples, and when we are told that Jesus used the word Cephas by St. John, who was there when it was spoken, and when St. Paul, who knew St. Peter, calls St. Peter Cephas…it’s just foolish to argue otherwise.
†God Bless!
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
I really don’t think you quite understand the problem.
Yes, it’s very clear that Jesus called Simon bar Jona “Kepha”. Nobody is debating that.
In fact, I’M not even “debating” anything. I’m asking questions, because as I’ve posted several times before, I’m considering becoming Catholic… But, I’m not yet convinced that Jesus really said He would build His church on Simon bar Jona…
Why am I not convinced?
Because, all we have to go on is what the Greek version of Matt 16:18 says… And, in the Greek, the words used were ("…you are Petros, and upon this petra…").
God Himself is referred to as “The Rock of my salvation” (using the word “petra”, in the Septuagint - see 2 Samuel 22:2 for an example). The idea of “God the Rock” is inescapable in the Old Testament. You can’t read through the Psalms without reading that “God is my rock”, or “God is the rock” (etc).
Paul refers to Christ as “petra” (the rock) in 1 Corith 10:4. Paul was a “natural” Greek writer, and he used the word “petra” when describing Jesus).
The whole “God = Rock of Salvation” is VERY common Jewish thought, and that word “rock” is translated as “petra” in Greek.
AND - “Christ = God” is a belief of both Catholics and Protestants. “Christ, the Incarnate God”… “The Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh…”
SO - Christ = God = Rock of my Salvation = petra
See the connection?
THATS THE BIG QUESTION:
The words in Greek were “… Petros… petra…”. We KNOW Petros = Kepha, but we also KNOW that petra = Rock (ie, Rock of my salvation) = Christ = God…
To me, well, that’s a pretty big concern.
I’m sorry if you think it’s “silly”, but the whole Catholic idea has indeed been debated since the first century.
I’ve read Jimmy Akins stuff, and I see his “theories”, but nothing to back it up…
For example, he says that petros and petra were used “synonymously” in Koine Greek, but he offers NO EXAMPLES or documentation to support his claim…
On the other hand, I read other info that says quite differently, AND gives supporting research info, like at freetowne.com/pppk (just read the “assertions”)
So, for me, it’s down to this: If I can’t get “comfortable” with the idea that Jesus was, in fact, saying He would build His church on Simon bar Jona, then there’s no point in becoming Catholic.
I’ve read NUMEROUS Catholic writings lately, and most of them say stuff like “Petros and petra were synonymous” (for example), but they offer no “proof”. They don’t say “look in Homers book, and you’ll see that ‘petra’ was used as ‘a small stone’, or ‘petros’ was used as a huge rock to build a house on”.
If you can help out with some serious, documented info on this, it would be appreciated. I’m just looking for something beyond “theories”… I mean, if the Catholic Church “has it right”, then I need to get with the program. But, I need somebody to actually prove their case. Otherwise, its “no deal”…
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
It’s very simple. If we follow the Protestant views then we cannot answer why Christ gave Simon a new name, or the keys/authority to bind and loosen. To be honest this petra argument is making mountains out of mole hills and is ignoring the other factors that contribute to understanding the context of the verses. So if you take the Protestant view we would have to answer:
Why did Christ even bother changing Simons name to Peter?
Why did Christ pick this time to change Simons name to Rock only to tell Simon that Christ is the rock He would build His Church on?
If Christ is the rock and not Simon then why give Simon the keys to the kingdom of Heaven if Peter was not the rock in which the Church would be built on?
Why would Christ give Simon the authority to bind and loosen if Peter is not the Rock?
If Christ is the Rock and if Christ was referring to Himself when speaking to Simon who just so happens to be named Peter (Rock) by Christ at the exact same time Christ was referring to Himself as being the Rock, then why would Christ give keys to Himself? Doesn’t Christ already have the keys?
A
ahs
Guest
And what possible evidence is there from the information that we DO have that points to another possible word such as “shu’a”? NONE. What possible evidence do we have that He said “kepha”? The fact that John tells us that this is what Jesus called Peter, as did Paul.
But I think the most compelling information comes from the surrounding context. The question Credo in Deum posted, in my opinion, show that there is not other possible way to interpret Christ’s Words other than the Catholic explanation.
And just for a little more backdrop on the context (I just learned this after watching Steve Ray’s “Footsteps of God” video on Peter):
-the site at Ceasera Philipi (spelling?) was before a massive 100’ x 500’ rock. And next to it, a Pagan temple where the “god” Pan was worshiped. Pan was the “god” of…yep, you guessed it…sheep and shepherds. See the play on irony there by Christ? Christ takes Simon to a massive rock, and after Simon witnesses to Christ on who Christ is…Christ witnesses to Simon who Simon is…and is who/what he is to be… “Peter”…with the humongous “peter” as the backdrop.
All this adjacent to a pagan temple, where Pan is worshiped. Pan, the false shepherd for the pagans, in the temple…yet Christ the True Shepherd, sets Peter up as the foundation for the True Temple…His Church…and makes Peter the overseer of this Church on earth while Christ will prepare the Kingdom for His Church. The Keys to the Kingdom is ever so much more than a symbol here. Who had the keys of the kingdoms in the days of kings? The steward. And the steward was, yep…you guessed it, fully in charge while the king was away and the keys represented the stewards full authority vested in him by the king. See what Christ has done? He has appointed His earthly representative to shepherd His Church on earth.
- Status