Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[aussie_stockman]

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?

First, Simon bar Jona was called Kepha LONG BEFORE the scripture in Matt 16:18…

John 1:40-42 - “40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

This was on the FIRST DAY that Jesus and Simon bar Jona met. Get your facts straight.

Why did Jesus bother to change Simon bar Jonas name? Well, look, according to Jastrows Aramaic lexicon, Jesus changed Simons name to (basically) “Little Rock”. I got no idea why. Maybe Jesus wanted to CONTRAST Himself and Simon bar Jona… After all, it is GOD that is the “foundation of the world”. It is GOD that is the Creator, the Provider, the Rock of our Salvation. “Man” can do NOTHING apart from GOD. God is the one, single thing upon which EVERYTHING depends. And Christ IS God Incarnate. So, maybe Jesus just wanted to say (later on) “yep, you’re Little Rock, but EVERYTHING is built on ME, a HUGE rock”. I don’t know…

It doesn’t do YOU any good to be asking “rhetorical questions”. It does nothing at all to prove YOUR point. And, you CERTAINLY are not convincing me one bit that I should become Catholic… I’m thinking I need to talk to somebody else… Frankly, you’re a lousy spokesman for your faith…

As far as the “keys” go, those same keys could be given to EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER in Jesus Christ.

And, besides, Ephesians (2:19-22) says “19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the 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, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

Apparantly, the Church is built on ALL the apostles (and the prophets), not just “Simon bar Jona”…

You keep on wanting to dodge the “petros/petra” question with a bunch of exegesis, but the fact is this: Unless somebody can show - linguistically - how to make “petros” and “petra” mean the same thing, then there’s just no case to be made, is there?

I mean, heck, there are people out there who make (so-called) scriptural arguments that the Pope is the Antichrist… ANYBODY can just about make a scriptural argument for just about any whacked-out position they want to take…

But in this case, if you cant prove that “petros” and “petra” are referring to the same thing (linguistically), then there’s just nothing to go on…

So, if you want to pitch in on a discussion of how “petros” and “petra” are the same thing, then I’m all ears…

If you want to just keep trying to discount it, and keep throwing out this other non-related nonsense, then I’ll just wait for somebody else to help out…

Thanks

 

[ahs]

First, Simon bar Jona was called Kepha LONG BEFORE the scripture in Matt 16:18…

John 1:40-42 - “40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

This was on the FIRST DAY that Jesus and Simon bar Jona met. Get your facts straight.

Wrong…Jesus says “…you SHALL be called…”, not “…you ARE…”. Look again at Matt 16:16-19

“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." He first calls him by his name, Simon.

“…I also say to you that you are Peter,” …and NOW HE calls him Peter…

"…and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

And He will build a Church upon a foundation…a visible Church, which He said would be as on a mountaintop for all to see…with a visible head sitting in an office that He created (see my previous post).

 

[pablope]

Why the hang up?*

 

[pablope]

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…”.

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…”?

As others have pointed out…it is a translation issue.

 

[aussie_stockman]

As others have pointed out…it is a translation issue.

Well, yes… others have pointed out that it’s a translation issue… BUT - nobody offers anything to SHOW me that it’s a translation issue…

I mean, exactly WHAT is the “translation issue”?

If you’re going to say “oh, well, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and said ‘kepha… kepha’”, then let’s not even go there. Nobody knows what Jesus said in Aramaic… The “kepha… kepha…” thing is nothing but pure supposition.

So, help me out here. Don’t just SAY it’s a “translation issue”. Show me how you KNOW that - please. I mean, you guys gotta understand - I can find a LOT of websites that would disagree with you. Thing is, I haven’t yet found a single Catholic website that actually explains - and gives supportive linguistic documentation - that somehow this “petros/petra” thing is a translation issue…

In an earlier post, I showed (for instance) actual lexical info that showed that kepha is a feminine noun, that there is more than one word for “rock” in Aramaic, that petros is not a “masculine form” of petra, but rather, the two words are entirely different, with entirely different meanings and genders, and maybe a few other items…

I’m looking for actual info, like the stuff I posted earlier, that will support the Catholic position. I mean, if it’s a FACT that it’s a translation issue, then SOMEBODY out there must have SOME info that demonstrates that clearly…

So, PLEASE UNDERSTAND: I’m not saying it’s NOT a translation issue. It very well could be. But, I’m having a really hard time finding anything that shows me the “facts”… This idea that it’s a translation issue is a great idea, a great theory, but I’m gonna need more to go on…

 

[aussie_stockman]

Wrong…Jesus says “…you SHALL be called…”, not “…you ARE…”. Look again at Matt 16:16-19

“Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." He first calls him by his name, Simon.

“…I also say to you that you are Peter,” …and NOW HE calls him Peter…

"…and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

And He will build a Church upon a foundation…a visible Church, which He said would be as on a mountaintop for all to see…with a visible head sitting in an office that He created (see my previous post).

OK, fair enough… I mean, if somebody said to me “You are Aussie, son of Stockman, and you shall be called Good Looking”, why, I’d kinda figure that would start right away, especially if it was said in front of other people… Like, saying, “…you shall be called Good Looking from now on…” In fact, if it were said in front of other people, I guess I’d kind of expect that those other people might start calling me Good Looking on that same day… shrug

BUT - lets go with your “analysis”…

Jesus says “you SHALL be called ‘Little Rock’”, right?

I mean, that’s what “kepha” means, isn’t it?

And, kepha was translated as petros… and petros means “stone”…

Here’s the definitions:

kepha: 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;
(Jastrows Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature)

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
(Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek-English Lexicon)

So - it’s pretty easy to see that kepha = petros = “smallish stone”

Sure glad we got that one figured out…

Jesus says that Simon SHALL be called “Little Rock” sometime in the future, then in Matt 16:18, Jesus says “… you ARE (now) ‘Little Rock’”

OK, good… it all makes sense to me now…

Thanks!

 

[pablope]

Well, yes… others have pointed out that it’s a translation issue… BUT - nobody offers anything to SHOW me that it’s a translation issue…

So, PLEASE UNDERSTAND: I’m not saying it’s NOT a translation issue. It very well could be. But, I’m having a really hard time finding anything that shows me the “facts”… This idea that it’s a translation issue is a great idea, a great theory, but I’m gonna need more to go on…

This guy wrote a book…Upon This Rock…his name is Stephen Ray…I would recommend his book to you:

catholic-convert.com/resources/writings/steve-rays/

Look for this among his writings…(this includes ECF quotes on who they understood the rock is)

Is Peter the Rock, or is the Rock only his Confession of Faith?
What do the Bible and the Early Fathers Teach?
Steve Ray’s Response to an Eastern Orthodox Christian

Scripture repeatedly refers to the God as the “Rock.” In each place—in the Old and New Testaments—where “rock” is used, there is a reference to the divinity of God. (Ex 17:6, 33:12; Deut. 32:4, 32:15, 32:18, 32:21; I Sam 2:2; II Sam 22:2, 22:32; Ps. 28:1, 31:3, 62:2, 89:26, 92:15, 95:1; Isa 17:10, I Cor 10:4, etc.). One could conclude that “rock” can only refer to God and to use it for a man would take away from the glory and strength of God or somehow be sacrilegious.

But this would be a false assumption. God is also spoken of as the Shepherd (Psa 23), and Jesus is the Good Shepherd (Jn 10). Does that preclude others from being shepherds? No, in fact Peter was a shepherd just like he was the rock. Does it take away from Christ being the Rock or the Shepherd? No, Peter can share in his “rock ness” and “shepherd ness.”

Abraham is also referred to as a Rock. “Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you that seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him many” (Is 51:1 2).

At the inception of the great Abrahamic covenant, God says He set up a rock from which the nation of Israel was hewn. Along with the designation as rock, Abram’s name was changed from Abram (father) to Abraham (father of a multitude). And in Matthew 16 he changes another name, this time changing Simon’s name to “Rock” upon which the Church will be established.
Referring to Matthew 16, and Peter as the Rock, Protestant professor David Hill writes, “In favor of interpreting the word-play as a personal reference is the rabbinic saying about Abraham: when the Holy one wanted to create the world, he passed over the generations of Enoch and of the Flood; but when he saw Abraham who was to arise, he said: ‘Behold, I have found a rock on which I can build and found the world’ therefore he called Abraham ‘rock,’ as it is said [Is 51:1] Look to the rock from which you were hewn’” (David Hill, The New Century Bible Commentary on The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdman Publ., 1972], 261). The Jewish listeners would immediately understand the import of Jesus’ words, richly couched in their Jewish heritage. The parallels were drawn between Abraham and Peter: name changes to designate new statuses, the designations of both as “rock”, and both standing at the fountainhead of the two major covenants of God with his people. In each case God began with one person to achieve a much larger goal.

So if your point is that only Christ can be the foundation, you begin with a great handicap because we see biblical warrant for other things to be referred to as “a foundation.” You cannot interchange descriptive figures of speech willy-nilly between different illustrations—commonly called “mixing metaphors.” Mixing metaphors does great violence to each textual illustration and is a good example of poorly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). In the metaphorical description in Matthew 16, Jesus couldn’t be the foundation—he clearly states he is the builder, not the foundation! Builders lay foundations, they are not the foundation.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by aussie_stockman
Well, yes… others have pointed out that it’s a translation issue… BUT - nobody offers anything to SHOW me that it’s a translation issue…

So, PLEASE UNDERSTAND: I’m not saying it’s NOT a translation issue. It very well could be. But, I’m having a really hard time finding anything that shows me the “facts”… This idea that it’s a translation issue is a great idea, a great theory, but I’m gonna need more to go on…

This guy wrote a book…Upon This Rock…his name is Stephen Ray…I would recommend his book to you:

catholic-convert.com/resources/writings/steve-rays/

Look for this among his writings…(this includes ECF quotes on who they understood the rock is)

Is Peter the Rock, or is the Rock only his Confession of Faith?
What do the Bible and the Early Fathers Teach?
Steve Ray’s Response to an Eastern Orthodox Christian

You wrote: “The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of Confession” (St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), 53rd Homily on St. Matthew).

You put quotation marks around this sentence implying it is a direct quote—which it is not! The direct quote is this: “Therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.” And also, in your research paper you better cite the correct homily: it is not Homily 53, it is Homily 54, section 3.

Setting aside the context of Chrysostom’s statement for the moment, let’s take our first approach first. Does Chrysostom refer to Peter as the Rock elsewhere in his writing? Let’s look.

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, . . . THIS VERY PETER, AND WHEN I NAME PETER, I NAME THAT UNBROKEN ROCK, THAT FIRM FOUNDATION, the great Apostles, the first of the disciples” (Hom. 3, de Poenit.).

St. Chrysostom also wrote:

“See how Paul speaks after Peter, and no one restrains: James waits and starts not up, for he (Peter) it was to whom had been entrusted the government (primacy)” (Acts of the Apostles Hom. 33 in The Faith of Catholics ed. by Rev. T. J. Capel [New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1885], 2:34).

“He [Jesus] said to him, Feed my sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him [Peter] rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [authority] over the brethren . . . If anyone should say, Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He [Jesus] made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world” (Homilies on John 88, 1).

We have not come to our conclusions lightly. It has been built on the teachings of the Scriptures, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Councils of the Church—by the Holy Spirit.

Let’s look at one more example—a quotation you use from Origen.

“If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the Son of Thunder? What will you say of each of the apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in patricular, but shall prevail against all others? Are not the words addressed to them all?” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew).

Before we discuss this quotation, let’s start with our two-step approach. Does Origen refer to Peter as the rock and/or foundation elsewhere in his writings? Yes.

Origen (c. AD 185c. 254) “Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however, is doubtful.” (Commentaries on John 5, 3).

“Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? O you of little faith,’ He says, why did you doubt.!’” (Homilies on Exodus 5, 4).

“He [Origen] wrote also to Fabianus, bishop of Rome, and to many other rulers of the churches concerning his orthodoxy.”( Eusebius 6, 36, 4). Jerome tells us, “Origen himself, in the letter which he writes to Fabianus, bishop of the city of Rome, professes his penitence for writing such things and lays the blame of indiscretion on Abrosius because he had published a private composition” (Epistle 84).

So, not only does Origen profess that Peter is the Rock and foundation, but out of respect for the Roman bishop writes to explain and hopefully exonerate himself, which would allow him back into good graces with the universal Church.

 

[pablope]

Well, yes… others have pointed out that it’s a translation issue… BUT - nobody offers anything to SHOW me that it’s a translation issue…

I mean, exactly WHAT is the “translation issue”?

So, PLEASE UNDERSTAND: I’m not saying it’s NOT a translation issue. It very well could be. But, I’m having a really hard time finding anything that shows me the “facts”… This idea that it’s a translation issue is a great idea, a great theory, but I’m gonna need more to go on…

catholic-convert.com/2011/11/01/you-are-peter-in-jesus-language-of-aramaic/

Cyprian of Carthage
“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 the gates
of hell will not overcome it. And to you I
will give the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatever things you bind on
earth shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth, they shall be
loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says
to him after His 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 Apostles, 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 shepherds,
and the flock is shown to be one, fed by
all the Apostles in single-minded accord.
If someone does not hold fast to this unity
of Peter, can he 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?” (Cyprian of Carthage, 251).

 

[aussie_stockman]

Hey, Pablope -

Believe it or not, I actually read EVERYTHING you posted…

The thing is this: ALL of what you said might very well be 100% VALID… and, I’m sure that for those of you who are already Catholic, it probably is…

But, I’m not there yet. So, what other guys who were already Catholic had to say about Peter, the Papacy, etc, is just not YET relevant to me.

You see, Matt 16:18 - the very verse in which Jesus pronounces that Simon bar Jona would be “the rock” upon which Christ builds His church (according to the Catholic understanding) has been understood by ALL other Christian “denominations” to mean something else…

Well, I’m not here to present a debate at all…

I’m just trying to understand how “petros” and “petra” can mean the same thing. Thats really about all. If I can understand THAT, the the REST of the stuff becomes truly relevant.

OK - let me explain…

IF Jesus was indeed saying “I’m going to build my chuch on you, Simon”, then the following statement about the “keys of the kingdom” means one thing. On the other hand, IF Jesus was saying “I’m going to build my church on ‘this, the petra’” (which is what the scripture literally says in Greek), then it means He’s going to build his church on the fact that “…you are the Christ”, and therefore, that second part (about the keys) must mean something different.

So, for me, from my uneducated viewpoint, it is of critical importance to understand HOW “petros” and “petra” both mean Simon bar Jona.

(BTW - please don’t take my word for it that Matt 16:18 literally says “…on this the rock…”. Please check out this Greek-English interlinear bible online: scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat16.pdf)

Also, please note: In Greek, if I said “…you are Pablope, and upon this Pablope I will put a hat”, you don’t say “…upon this THE Pablope…” because you’re referring to a person, not a “thing”. (but, all this is just a “side note”… feel free to disregard this if you like).

Look - it’s like this: I figure you guys should all KNOW how the “petros/petra” thing works. I mean, your whole viewpoint is based on the belief that Jesus was saying “I’m going to build my church on YOU, Simon”. So, certainly, somebody out there should be able to explain it to me…

How does petros = petra? Pretty simple question, really… For now, that’s all I want to know…

I mean, if you can show me how that works, thats PERFECTLY FINE. I’ll totally go with it. I’m totally OK with becoming a Catholic, but SOMEBODY’S gotta explain to me how that’s supposed to work, that’s all…

P.S. and please - NOT just “theories”. Everybodys got theories. Dang, even the protestants got theories. So somebody please point me to some real info regarding the linguistics. I’ve posted some stuff I’ve found in highly-reputed lexicons… Well, thats the kind of stuff I’m looking for. Stuff that has actual “textual support”. Can anybody help with this?

 

[ahs]

Jesus says “you SHALL be called ‘Little Rock’”, right?..I mean, that’s what “kepha” means, isn’t it?..:

kepha: 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;
(Jastrows Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature)

petros: A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark2. ‘leave no stone unturned’; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed
(Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek-English Lexicon)

So - it’s pretty easy to see that kepha = petros = “smallish stone”

I don’t think it is so clear, given the varied definitions you supplied. Though, I think the “size” of the “kepha” that Christ made Simon (Peter), and as Paul referst o him as, is not as significatnt as the fact that Peter, the kepha, was made of sufficient size for Christ to establish His Church upon that Kepha.

You see, Matt 16:18 - the very verse in which Jesus pronounces that Simon bar Jona would be “the rock” upon which Christ builds His church (according to the Catholic understanding) has been understood by ALL other Christian “denominations” to mean something else…

Begining in what year? What year, or what general timframe, do we see the first notions that all other Christians understood Matt 16:18 differently from the Catholics?

You will be able to find this date by looking in history. And when you do, ask yourself, how is it that the Holy Spirit took a vacation from, or abaondoned, His Church which “the gates of hell will never prevail against” and which is called the “pillar and foundation of Truth”? How can this be? And the answer will be contained in the more obvious answer…He didn’t…the Truth has always been there and only recently was rejected by “ALL other Christian “denominations””.

 

[57Bill]

I don’t know in my heart how any one true Christian can deny this. Sola must ALSO take into account Sacred Tradition because of what the bible is a product OF Sacred Tradition and the manuscripts.

Is it really this semantic definition that defines or denies Apostolic succession?

Matthew’s gospel was written mainly for those who were Jewish Christians who understood the history and prophecy and “fulfillment of the scriptures” of the what we call the OT. Matthew’s gospel IS NOT an embellishment of Mark’s gospel as some claim so, even if it is assumed the author(s) were scribes as John Mark or others of Peter’s experiences. Just because this event is not captured as fully as in the other gospels does not take away it’s importance.

 

[pablope]

Hey, Pablope -

Believe it or not, I actually read EVERYTHING you posted…

 

[aussie_stockman]

pablope, 57bill, ahs -

thank you for your kind responses…

I promise I’m going to do some more reading - especially of the materials you guys have suggested…

Now - I do have another question, and this isn’t about “Peter”, per se…

One time, I went with a guy to a place, way high up in the Andes… There was this little village there. Those people had lived up there, seperated from the rest of civilization for CENTURIES…

well, a size-able group of them were all believers in Jesus. Man, these guys LOVED Jesus, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a bunch of people that were more sincere or more expressive of their love for Christ. For them, Jesus was somebody that each one would say that he/she knew very personally. Each of them just seemed to relate to Christ as one might relate to their best friend. It was really beautiful.

Thing is, these guys had never heard of the Catholic Church, nor the Pope. Somewhere back in history, some guy had gotten a copy of the bible, and began reading it, and began sharing the gospels with the others in the village. The question (or idea?) of the Pope (or, really, of some particular “special significance” of Peter) just never came up.

I’m just saying, these guys had no idea of that stuff. They just knew Jesus.

SO - my question to you guys is: Does the Catholic Church even consider those guys as real believers? As brothers in Christ?

One of the things I’ve read is that Catholics can’t take communion with, say, a Baptist. And I’ve read (a couple of years ago) that Pope Benedict said that other “churches” aren’t really churches at all, and don’t have “the power of salvation”… (I could post some info on that, but really, that isn’t a “point” I’m trying to make)

Just from you guys perspective, are those guys, way up there in that little village in the Andes, just not really even Christians?

There’s a scripture that says “by His grace, He has made me accepted in the beloved” (the “beloved” is the church). SO - let’s just say those guys up in the Andes NEVER figure out there’s a Pope someplace… Does that mean they all know Jesus, but they’re not part of His body? I mean - Did God reveal Christ to them, but now, God has cut them off for some reason? Or, maybe God doesn’t think they’re “good enough” because they haven’t figured out that Simon bar Jona was something more “special”, and they better find out who the Pope is?

BELIEVE ME - NONE of what I’m saying is meant to be negative, disrespectful, sarcastic, or anything like that at all…

I just think this is an important question, and I’d really like to hear from you guys on it…

Thanks!

aussie

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Aussie,
The two words have the same root, “Petr-.” While “petra” means stone, if you turn it into a man’s name, you change the ending. Adding “-os” to the end makes it a man’s name. Leaving the “-a” at the end would denote a woman’s name. The meaning of the word itself is still “rock,” but now it is clearly a person’s name. There are men today who are named Petros and women who are named Petra. Essentially, it’s just the same word with two different endings. In other languages it’s common to change the ending of a word to use it a different way. If I say “bailar” it means dance, if I say “bailamos” it means “let’s dance.” But they both have the same root, “bail-” which always indicates dance.

Jesus is saying both, “you are Rock,” as in “your name is Rock,” and “you are rock” as in “your faith is unshakable,” at the same time.

 

[ahs]

pablope, 57bill, ahs -

thank you for your kind responses…

I promise I’m going to do some more reading - especially of the materials you guys have suggested…

Now - I do have another question, and this isn’t about “Peter”, per se…

One time, I went with a guy to a place, way high up in the Andes… … Does the Catholic Church even consider those guys as real believers? As brothers in Christ?

One of the things I’ve read is that Catholics can’t take communion with, say, a Baptist. And I’ve read (a couple of years ago) that Pope Benedict said that other “churches” aren’t really churches at all, and don’t have “the power of salvation”… (I could post some info on that, but really, that isn’t a “point” I’m trying to make)

Awesome!

Your other questions are great ones…I highly recommend you start a new thread for them…probably in the Apologetics sub forum.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Aussie,
The two words have the same root, “Petr-.” While “petra” means stone, if you turn it into a man’s name, you change the ending. Adding “-os” to the end makes it a man’s name. Leaving the “-a” at the end would denote a woman’s name. The meaning of the word itself is still “rock,” but now it is clearly a person’s name. There are men today who are named Petros and women who are named Petra. Essentially, it’s just the same word with two different endings. In other languages it’s common to change the ending of a word to use it a different way. If I say “bailar” it means dance, if I say “bailamos” it means “let’s dance.” But they both have the same root, “bail-” which always indicates dance.

Jesus is saying both, “you are Rock,” as in “your name is Rock,” and “you are rock” as in “your faith is unshakable,” at the same time.

Hey, Cruz Sacra -

As far as “names” go, I’d say your “petra/petros” thoughts might be correct, except that both words are used as nouns in the scripture (although, clearly, Petros is also used as a name).

And, they are seperate words, with seperate definitions. (I’ve posted the definitions from Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek/English Lexicon a few times before - I don’t want to be redundant again).

So, what I’m saying is that - although both words eventually were used as names, and although both share the petr root - they don’t mean the same thing at all.

(incidentally, from my readings, it appears that Petra wasn’t used as a womans name until sometime in the 1800’s or so - but, not sure that that really matters)

So, petros was indeed used as the name for Simon, and according to LSJ, it seems to signify “smallish” rocks. Petra is always used as a noun in scripture, and according to LSJ, aways refers to “a rock mass”.

If the word were like the Greek word for “dog” - which has a masculine and femine version, for male and female dog - then “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…” would clearly be using a masculine and feminine version of the same, single word, that had only one definition. But, they’re not like “dog-a” and “dog-os” (so to speak). “dog” is the same animal, just male and female. But there are no male and female rocks. And, as I’ve mentioned, Greek dictionaries show them as two seperate words, with two seperate meanings…

I guess - just to sort of sum up - I kinda don’t think the explanation you offered really works. And besides, even IF Petros and Petra HAD both been used back in “biblical times” as names, it would make no sense for Jesus to refer to Simon by both a male and female name… So, I’m just not sure if that explanation works for me…

I may be missing something in what you said, and I’m really open to other ideas, and I thank you for taking the time to offer your (name removed by moderator)ut on my question…

aussie

 

[aussie_stockman]

Awesome!

Your other questions are great ones…I highly recommend you start a new thread for them…probably in the Apologetics sub forum.

Hey, ahs!

wow! hehehe… MY OWN THREAD! kinda exciting!!!

OK, but I’m gonna wait just a little on that… Another fella wrote something about the “petros petra” thing… gonna see if maybe I can get a bit more info…

Besides… hehehe… I gotta figure out how to start another thread…

aussie

 

[ahs]

…And besides, even IF Petros and Petra HAD both been used back in “biblical times” as names, it would make no sense for Jesus to refer to Simon by both a male and female name… So, I’m just not sure if that explanation works for me…

Looking at the Scriptures and other history, we don’t see any instaces where Petros or Petra were ever used for a formal name for someone. That should be a highly significant fact. Recall how important names were, especially changes in one’s name, in those times.

And the other fact is that, as you pointed out, we cannot assume Christ referred to Simon by a male and female name (Pertos/Petra). What we DO know is what language Christ spoke from the cross, and we know the word Paul used multiple times for Peter (Kephas/Cephas). You are right, it makes no sense for Christ to call Simon by a female name…and I believe He did not. What I believe happened is the more like scenario, and that which supports Sacred Tradition…Christ called Simon “Kepha”, which means a large rock/boulder, and is gender-nuetral. This translated into “Petra” (which is NOT gender-nuetral, rather femine) in the Greek that the Gospel was translated into, and to prevent from presenting Simon as receiving a feminine name, the writer who translated the Gospel into that Greek used “Petros”.

Anyway, I think the larger point is in the handing of the keys. Compare Isaiah 22 15-25…

This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:

“Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna the palace administrator:
16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?

17 “Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house.
19 I will depose you from your office,
and you will be ousted from your position.
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 people 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 become 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.

…to Matt 16:16-19…

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,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades** will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” **

Then re-read Isaiah with that in mind…with the NT revealing the OT, the Old concelaing the New…here is my personal take in brackets…

This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:

“Go, say to this steward, to Shebna the palace administrator:
16 What are you [Pharisees?]doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?

17 “Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house[the Lord’s Kingdom?].19 I will depose you from your office,
and you will be ousted from your position.
20 “In that day I will summon my servant [Simon Barjona?] , 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 [who, and who ALONE, did Christ give the keys to?] . He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key [again, the keys went to whom?] to the house of David David as a prefigure of Christ?] ; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. …what you bind…what you loose…prefigure of Christ saying to Peter] 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place [Christ to Peter…you are Rock] ; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father. [and upon this Rock I will build My Church] 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. [the gates of hell will not prevail?]
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, [what was previously reserved for the Jews is now offered to the gentiles?] and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The Lord has spoken.

 

[ahs]

…Besides… hehehe… I gotta figure out how to start another thread…

aussie

Just FYI, if you click on the particular forum/sub-forum you want, you’ll see a “New Thread” button…located similarly to the button for making a new post within a thread (toward the top of the page). Once you click on that, you enter in a thread title and start typing.