L
latisha1903
Guest
Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH IN CHRIST is the ROCK upon whom the true church is built - not Peter the STONE
- Status
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Latisha, I am in agreement in your post
K
kwitz
Guest
Latisha -your whole arguement about the Greek word Petra/ Petros is mute since Jesus was not speaking Greek at this point. He was speaking Aramaic and Peter was called Cephas or Kephas which is used both times to reference Peter.
English does not have the same feminine or male endings that Greek does so we fail to understand why the Petra and Petros are both used. The best analogy that I read about this is that we could call Peter, Rocky but not Rockette. Some apologist explained it wonderfully and I can’t rememeber where I read this analogy. Does any one know where I can reread it?
Kris
English does not have the same feminine or male endings that Greek does so we fail to understand why the Petra and Petros are both used. The best analogy that I read about this is that we could call Peter, Rocky but not Rockette. Some apologist explained it wonderfully and I can’t rememeber where I read this analogy. Does any one know where I can reread it?
Kris
L
latisha1903
Guest
we’ll all believe what we believe, i’m still assured that Peter is NOT the rock…but to each his own and again we’ll agree to disagree…
S
SteveG
Guest
You have to remember that IMMEDIATELY after calling Peter the rock and saying he will build his church on Peter, he then gives him the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. It is very well established that in first century Jewish culture both the keys (which could also possibly tie back to the key in Isiah) and binding and loosing are representative of teaching and interpative authority. This is not debatable and is accepted by both Catholic and Protestant bible scholars alike.I have no problem with peter being a rock,the fact is that Jesus is the firm foundation. Peter builds on the Lords foundation.Enough said.
Putting the naming of Pter as Rock, and the building of the foundation on that Rock in the context of the next statement giving him teaching and interpretive authority (which he also SEPARATELY give (minus the keys) to the other apostles in MT 18), it is clear that the threefold blessing Christ gives Peter in MT 16 confers on him a special role in the church, and he is not just ‘another’ block in the building as you suggest.
S
SteveG
Guest
You are badly mistaken here.
Jesus would likely have spoken this in Aramaic not Greek
- Evna means little stone in Aramaic
- Kepha means massive stone
- Simon was given the name Kepha by Christ (rendered Cephas in English) . We know this because that name for Peter is preserved for us in two of Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians).
- So we know now that in the Aramaic, Jesus would have said*** ‘You are Kepha (massive stone), and on this Kepha (massive stone) I will build my Church’.***
- It is now clear that Kepha 2 refers to Kepha 1. Peter is the Rock.
- If the Greek is a translation, then the change in the first rock reference would have been necessary only because Petros is in the feminine form in Greek, and would have been inappropriate for a male name (see below). The switch to Petra is NOT to indicate a small rock, but to make the name fitting for a male.
- Kepha 2 refers to Kepha 1. Peter is the Rock (as shown above).
- Petros and Petra were synonyms in Koine Greek (the dialect of the NT) and no real distinction existed with reference to size at the time Matthew was rendered.
a. We already know that the word for massive stone in Aramaic is Cephas (as distinguished from Evna - small stone).
b. In John 1:42, he is saying ‘You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’
c. John is equating Cephas (massive stone) with Peter/(Petros).
John uses Petros as an equivalent of Petra in linking it to Cephas in John 1:42 - Further, lithos would have been the more appropriate Koine Greek word to use if He wanted to refer to a small stone. So it is likely Petros is not in reference to small stone, but again is interchangeable with Petra in first century Greek.
- Petra has a feminine ending and could not be applied to Peter as a name. Thus, the first reference is transformed to Petros to give it a masculine ending suitable for a man’s name.
- The evidence of an earlier rename again shows that it is not in association with the confession (see above).
- Petra refers to Petros in the verse. Peter is the Rock.
Read acts in full context and then try to deny that Peter was the ‘head’ apostle. He takes the lead role in almost every instance in the book of acts. Further, James only confirmed what PETER decided. Debate ends afte Peter speaks and James simply agrees with him. This hardly implies that James was in authority over Peter.
S
SteveG
Guest
BTW, Even most Protestant bible scholars are now coming to agreement that Peter was indeed the rock. I can list names and references of some of the ‘heavy’ hitters who have come to this conclusion if you like. But from the statement above, I doubt you are interested in the truth here, just in believing what you belive irregardless.
L
latisha1903
Guest
good for them…first i’m not protestant…and second irregardless thats new for me…but i guess speech changes over time…
i’m content on what i have also…so your truth is not going to be my truth…so your statement is somewhat correct here…
S
SteveG
Guest
Yes latisha, you have disproved everything I listed below by catching me in a casual grammer error. I must be wrong about everything else as well based on that fact.
You posted on this thread in the hopes of enlightening us about the subtleties of the Greek involved in the Petros/Petra controversy (we all know all you really did was copy and paste this from a website you found it on), and when I explain why you are mistaken based on a deeper study, your response is not to address those facts, but rather to say ‘Oh well, damn the facts. I am content with what I have.’i’m content on what i have also…so your truth is not going to be my truth…so your statement is somewhat correct here…
Very intelligent discourse.
I’ll post the Protestant sources who have accepted that Peter is the rock in the statement for you in a separate post. I’ll leave it to you to check their credentials.
L
latisha1903
Guest
your grammer has no effect on the post…its just something i caught…why so defensive? i in no way meant to use your grammer to disprove you…that was off a tangent and a sidebar…Yes latisha, you have disproved everything I listed below by catching me in a casual grammer error. I must be wrong about everything else as well based on that fact.
You posted on this thread in the hopes of enlightening us about the subtleties of the Greek involved in the Petros/Petra controversy (we all know all you really did was copy and paste this from a website you found it on), and when I explain why you are mistaken based on a deeper study, your response is not to address those facts, but rather to say ‘Oh well, damn the facts. I am content with what I have.’
Very intelligent discourse.
I’ll post the Protestant sources who have accepted that Peter is the rock in the statement for you in a separate post. I’ll leave it to you to check their credentials.
facts? whose facts? thats what is wrong here. clearly in reading the Bible Peter is not the rock…and we are going to have to agree to disagree here…period on that…but you are going to continue saying from ‘history’ that he is…and i have reason to believe from what i’ve read that he is not, yes copied and pasted from a website, that i’ve researched and which backs up notes i’ve taken myself. * than to try to put in my own words and explain online what i’m trying to get at. first lets put this in writing…i’m not attacking you…period…because i don’t even know you…i’m responding to the initial post…on why i believe the Peter is NOT the rock…thats it…and i’ve given my reason’s and you’ve given yours…what more do you want out of the post? to continue to dispute when clearly both are convicted in our beliefs? we can go back and forth back and forth for nothing…and you can say i am ignoring the ‘facts’ just as i say you are ignoring what i have put also…the ‘facts’…and from there…what? Good Bless*
H
homer
Guest
Hey people what’s going on here !? Why are you fighting !?
You want to know who is the rock, Jesus or Peter? Come on! No need for translations. The answer is allready given.
… and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4)
You want to know who is the rock, Jesus or Peter? Come on! No need for translations. The answer is allready given.
… and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4)
L
latisha1903
Guest
already been quoted…
but again i say we are all convicted in our faith…period…and its like those that disagree on these boards are attacked for their beliefs…when i posted on why i have reason or why i believe that peter is not the rock…it was simply just to give a different view…not to say ooooo ya’ll are wrong…but frankly just to give my reasons assisted with scripture…but instead its like you get attacked simply because you don’t hold the same beliefs…what’s the point…
but homer i agree…and hey i’m sticking with what i know and believe…because just as you posted above…many reasons on why peter is not the rock…but hey…what more is there to argue about…
J
jimmy
Guest
L
latisha1903
Guest
man did not purpose the church
eph. 3:10-11
man did not purchase the church…since Christ died for HIS church why would he give it to someone else to ‘run’ or ‘rule’ It?
eph 5:25 and acts 20:28
man did not give the church its doctrine
gal 1:8-11 and 2 John 9:11
and I Cor. 10:4…proves so much that Christ is the rock…why would Christ build His chuch on a mere man… especially when we are ALL sinners romans 3:23
we know that the Church is Christ’s bride…eph. 5:22-32 and just as eve is apart of adam, so is the church a part of Christ, and surely Christ wouldn’t lay a foundation with man, or have a man the head of HIS bride…just as a husband is the head of his wife, Christ is the HEAD of HIS church…because this was purchased by his blood…acts 20:28…peter was a preacher of Christ WORD and church…not the head…
eph. 3:10-11
man did not purchase the church…since Christ died for HIS church why would he give it to someone else to ‘run’ or ‘rule’ It?
eph 5:25 and acts 20:28
man did not give the church its doctrine
gal 1:8-11 and 2 John 9:11
and I Cor. 10:4…proves so much that Christ is the rock…why would Christ build His chuch on a mere man… especially when we are ALL sinners romans 3:23
we know that the Church is Christ’s bride…eph. 5:22-32 and just as eve is apart of adam, so is the church a part of Christ, and surely Christ wouldn’t lay a foundation with man, or have a man the head of HIS bride…just as a husband is the head of his wife, Christ is the HEAD of HIS church…because this was purchased by his blood…acts 20:28…peter was a preacher of Christ WORD and church…not the head…
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
Why do you think this is witheld from our christian brothers and sisters? Is it denial or is it that they do not see it?
B
BCarpenelli
Guest
S
SteveG
Guest
And Abraham was also called rock (Isaiah 51:1) from which we are all hewn.
In Ephesians 2:21, individual Christias are referred to as the building stones from which the church is built up.
The word Rock, or stone is symbolic. Christ, nor Peter, nor Abraham, nor the individual Christian is ACTUALLY a rock, right? So to see what the symbolism means in any given instance, you need to look at the larger context. Pulling one verse (actually ½ a verse) out of context which calls Christ the rock says nothing whatsoever about the usage of the term in reference to Abraham, Peter or anyone else.
A
Annunciata
Guest
Steve,
You are absolutely correct…I took a course on this very subject and the key here is in Matthew: 16:vs.13…Who do people say that That the Son of Man is?" And Peter’s reply, vs.16 : “You are the Messiah,”…“The Son of the Living God!” Vs. 17, : Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father…” I would certainly gather that Peter was Blessed! Annunciata
S
SteveG
Guest
First, apologies if my previous post lacked charity. Without intending to ‘fight’, but rather discuss, let me see if I can ask a few questions to see if I understand you position correctly.
latisha1903:
latisha1903:
latisha1903:
Let me start with two simple yes or no questions that may get the discussion back on track.
Can you acknowledge that this is only an opinion of your’s? I would say it clearly shows Peter IS the rock, and that’s my opion. One of us is correct, and one of us in incorrect. Only the facts and evidence can decide that. Do we agree there?
I accept that you are not attacking me, and I apologize again if my posts seemed overly defensive. I don’t WANT anything more. This is a discussion forum, and as such usually people are interested in discussing their views. You lay out an opinion, I lay out a different one, and challenge some of what you wrote. I don’t think it’s overly belligerent to expect on a discussion forum that the person being challenged would want to address the critique of their posts and engage in further dialogue.
I agree that it can end up there, but I certainly don’t think it’s reached that point yet. If you are convicted of your beliefs, certainly you would want to explain and defend them. I brought up some things I believe are deficient in the facts you list, not necessarily to attack you, but to see how you can explain or defend those challenges. Again, we may come to the impasse you suggest, but there are way too many open question left before we have to declare such an impasse.
Let me start with two simple yes or no questions that may get the discussion back on track.
- Do you acknowledge that Jesus and the apostles likely would have spoken Aramaic, and not Greek in their daily conversations?
- Do you acknowledge that regardless of which interpretation is correct, Jesus likely would have spoken these statements in Aramaic?
F
francisca
Guest
The problem is, the original text of the New Testament is WRITTEN IN GREEK.
So the question should be :
Is “Cephas” a transliteration from Aramaic written in Greek Alphabeth (in the original text), or is this “Chephas” is merely a later translation from “Petros” (because the original text is in greek).
I think what language Jesus spoke to the apostles would be irrelevant because what we read is ORIGINAL WRITTEN TEXT IN GREEK LANGUAGE. We cannot speculate Jesus’s spoken “Peter”. We can only take it as it is from WHAT IS WRITTEN in the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT.
I have checked in the Greek bible (I’m not sure wether it is exactly the same as original text), but it is written Petros (pi epsilon tau ro omega zeta), and there is comment that says PetroV is male in gender, not female.
Just my little research! I’m no expert though…
- Status