So what if Peter was Petros?

[MarcoPolo]

Something occured to me yesterday regarding the common Protestant claim that when Christ named Peter Petros (Mt. 16:18), that this meant “small stone.”

For example, the claim goes: “In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble”.

First of all, we know this understanding of Greek is not accurate.

But secondly, what does the Protestant hope to prove from Peter being a small stone or a large rock? Suppose his Greek is accurate. He is suggesting that if Peter were a small stone, then the Church could not be built on him, and therefore there is no Pope. Is the Protestant suggesting that Jesus had not the power build upon a small stone?

Then the parable of the mustard seed hit me from Matthew 13:31. The “smallest of seeds” it was called, but it grew to the “greatest of shrubs.”

Of course Peter was rock. But whether Peter is a rock or small stone is immaterial, because Christ said the Church would be built on him. Has anyone ever read an apologist with this reaction?

 

[Parsifal]

I think Jesus was talking to Peter in Aramaic not Greek

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think Jesus was talking to Peter in Aramaic not Greek

Yes, the article I linked to goes into that. What I am saying is that the Protestant argument diffuses itself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, the article I linked to goes into that. What I am saying is that the Protestant argument diffuses itself.

They always do. They always do.

That’s why in dealing with such people, the best tactic is to read in context the proof texts they offer. And that’s why their counter-tactic is to try to change the subject when you do that.