D
- Status
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
How can you be certain of this?
P
Pons
Guest
No, since they can be (are) both - (primarily) Peter himself by sheer context and Greek grammar, and Peter’s faith (as expressed through his confession) which gives him the Rock-like quality Jesus is referring to. Jesus can be (is) also the Rock.
The Cathecism says:
What is meant by sheer context: Peter is addressed alone in the following: “Blessed are you… flesh and blood has not revealed this to you… I will give you the keys… whatever you bind… whatever you loose…”
What is meant by Greek grammar:
Original Greek (I think)
Quoting Tim Staples:
As others have said, “Peter vs. Peter’s (confession of) faith” is an either/or false dichotomy for Catholics. Rather they believe in both/and.
M
mikeledes
Guest
That the Church discerned which books belong in the canon and which did not is an undeniable historical fact and there are plenty of documents to prove it. How do you think the canon was discerned?
God bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Because Peter’s name (Aramaic: Kepha) means “Rock.” It makes sense that if Jesus renamed Simon “Rock”, then it is the person of Peter that He is referring to.
God bless,
Michael
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
I’m in agreement with you here. But since spiritual things are spiritually discerned there is no satisfying answer to HOW this works. It is enough (for me at least) to know that Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice.”
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
You might be right, but since Jesus began and ended that particular discussion by referring to HIMSELF, it seems more reasonable to me that Jesus was telling the disciples that Christ will build His church on the bedrock (large unmovable rock) of WHO JESUS IS. Does my interpretation seem unreasonable?
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
why would Jesus preface His statement with
"you are cephas(rock) immediately before saying
“and upon this cephas I will build my church”?
if He did not mean Cephas(kephas, peter, rock)?
What was the use of saying "you are Peter(cephas)?
if it was not peter he was speaking of in the vry next set of words in the exact same sentence?
The church IS Christ’s Body, therefore Christ would not be speaking of His Body. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Cornerstones are not under the foundation, they are on the same level as that foundation, just the corner of it. This is why the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, they uphold Christ to the world, as peter did as the church’s greatest servant. “the greatest servant among you, that is your leader” Christ stated to His apostles.
and he only gave one the keys and the job of tending and feeding his sheep and strengthening his brethren after being sifted by satan.
"you are cephas(rock) immediately before saying
“and upon this cephas I will build my church”?
if He did not mean Cephas(kephas, peter, rock)?
What was the use of saying "you are Peter(cephas)?
if it was not peter he was speaking of in the vry next set of words in the exact same sentence?
The church IS Christ’s Body, therefore Christ would not be speaking of His Body. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Cornerstones are not under the foundation, they are on the same level as that foundation, just the corner of it. This is why the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, they uphold Christ to the world, as peter did as the church’s greatest servant. “the greatest servant among you, that is your leader” Christ stated to His apostles.
and he only gave one the keys and the job of tending and feeding his sheep and strengthening his brethren after being sifted by satan.
M
mikeledes
Guest
M
mikeledes
Guest
“Kepha”, in Aramaic, means “large rock.” Remember, Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. So if he calls Peter “Rock” and then says “upon this rock I will build my church” and the subject of this passage is Peter, as demonstrated by the verses immediately following, than Peter must be the “rock” Jesus is talking about. So in essence, He is saying to Peter:
**18 And I also say to you that you are ‘Rock’ (Peter), and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[a] in heaven.” **
The main subject of verses 18 and 19 is the person of Peter.
God Bless,
Michael
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I maintain that sola scriptura cannot be part of God’s plan because it cannot be practiced.
Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
there are many reasons why.
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used” (this is more along the lines of Prima Scriptura)
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura. Prima Scriptura CAN be practiced.)
The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.
Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
Sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
there are many reasons why.
- There is no firm definition of sola scriptura, that all sola scripturists hold on to. How can you practice something that is not clearly defined?
Some say “Bible Alone”
Some say “Bible is #1 but other authorities may be used” (this is more along the lines of Prima Scriptura)
Some say “Bible ONLY! Anything outside of the Bible is tradition of men!”
Some say “Bible, tradition and magisterium, but Bible is the only infallible authority” (this is known as prima scriptura and not sola scriptura. Prima Scriptura CAN be practiced.)
The relativism of sola scriptura prevents such a firm definition to take hold.
- You’ll see that Sola scripturists will interpret scripture to come up with a doctrine. This interpretation and doctrine are found nowhere on the pages of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION. If they were really practicing sola scriptura, they wouldn’t need to deal with extra-scriptural traditions. My favorite example: “Communion is symbolic only” Oh really? Where is this in the Bible? I don’t see the words “Symbolic” or “metaphor” when Christ said the words. Maybe my Bible is a bad version because it doesn’t have those words
- You’ll also see that Sola scripturists will make judgments like “That’s not biblical” or they’ll cite their favorite pastor whose interpretation they accept. My personal favorite is when they accept the Jews (and Martin Luther) throwing out the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible. That’s them accepting a MAGISTERIUM’s authority.
Thus, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
Following your logic we would need to add that grace cannot save anyone because there is no single agreed upon definition for the word, “grace.” To some people, “grace” (or increases in grace) can be merited by our good works, while other people say that grace is incompatible with human effort.
There is no firm definition of “grace” that all “saved by grace” adherents hold on to. How can you be saved by something that is not clearly defined and on which totally opposite views are held?
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
Since the NT is believed to have been originally penned in Greek, I don’t understand why it matters that the words were spoken in Aramaic…unless you’re saying that the Greek rendering of this passage is deficient.
If you are so intent upon proving from the middle of the passage that Peter is the SUBJECT of the passage, then nothing I can say will matter.
When reading the text in its context, we find that Jesus begins and ends the discussion by referring to HIS OWN IDENTITY, not the supposed new identity of Peter as a pope.
If you are willing to read the other accounts of this story in Mark and Luke, you will likewise find no mention of Peter’s supposed new identity as pope mentioned. See Mark 8:27-30, and Luke 9:18-21
M
mikeledes
Guest
Because when the name is translated into the Greek, it can result in a significant change. In Aramaic, Kepha or Cephas - which is explicitly revealed in Scripture as Peter in Aramaic - means massive rock. In Greek - as in French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, etc. - there are masculine and feminine words. In Greek, feminine words end with “a” and masculine words end with “a.” The word for massive rock in classical Greek is “petra”, a feminine noun. Giving a man a feminine name is not accptable. Hence, Peter’s name had to be “masuclinized” and thus end with an “os.” However, since we know that Cephas means “massive rock” and that Jesus originally spoke in Aramaic, then Peter means massive Rock.
To whom does Jesus say you are Peter? To Himself? To whom does He say “I shall give the keys of the kingdom”? To Himself? The immediate subject of that middle passage is Peter. Moreover, Jesus presents Himself in that passage not as the rock on which the Church will be built, but as the builder.
**18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[a] in heaven.” **
Moreover, everything in red is about Peter. Are you saying that what’s in the middle of all that is in red is not about Peter. That would go against the natural reading of the passage. What is immediately before it is about Peter and what is immediately after it is about Peter. Moreover, there is no coincidence that Jesus renames Simon “Cephas” or “Rock” and then he immediately talks about a rock. It’s not that what you say does not matter to me. It’s that what you say does not make sense if you follow basic rules of semantics and grammar.
The immediate context proves that the subject is Peter, not Jesus. So it goes from Jesus to Peter to Jesus. That doesn’t mean that all that’s in the middle is not about Peter.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
Why would He change Simon’s name to Cpehas/Peter which means “Rock”? And then He proceeds to talk about a rock.God Bless,
Michael
C
ChrisWRIT
Guest
As others have noted, the Greek rendering is reliant on the grammatical norms of the language, primarily that of feminine/masculine senses of words.
In any case, some of the NT was written in Greek, & some of it wasn’t. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic— such as according to records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea.
Besides, if Jesus DIDN’T use the name Cephas, why is it noted other places in the NT, like 1 Cor 1, 3 & 9; Gal. 2, or in John 1:42 (the first time Jesus called Peter “Cephas”)?
Chris
A
anthony022071
Guest
Grace does not depend upon our having a clear definition of it,because it is a free gift from God. But the principle of sola scriptura is not from God.
N
Namesake
Guest
That’s a bunch of bunk!You’re right, my 30,000 figure was wrong. It is now estimated that there are over 33,000 protestant denominations wondering in the wilderness with no leadership or direction.
My mistake. And as posted in my initial post in this thread, I’ll admit to my mistakes.
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
Here you are using a circular argument–you’re attempting to prove your point by simply assuming your point. Although I’m in agreement with you that grace is a FREE gift (it cannot be merited or earned) there are millions of people who call themselves “Christians” who firmly believe what Rome teaches; that the grace that saves requires some degree of cooperation and effort on the part of the individual.
N
Nick_Jones
Guest
It seems to me that if the bible doesn’t teach anything about a papacy, then no pope existed in the early church. Here is just ONE passage where the NT would very likely mention something about a pope or a papal office of some kind, but it doesn’t. Instead we find that the HEAD OF THE CHURCH IS CHRIST:
Eph. 4:11-16
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
- Status