It is important to think about. It would be a mistake to try to evaluate the importance of something in the scriptures by it’s frequency of mention.
He was explaining that those who have this same profession of faith are grafted into his own rockyness, and can also become part of His building. There is no separation between Christ and those who are grafted into His foundation. If they separate from Him, they will no longer be part of the Foundation, like Judas.
It is of tremendous importance. He made it clear. The Apostles understood exactly what He meant.
The original was written in Aramaic, and the word is Cephas. Everyone translated Matthews gospel as best he could, until it was translated into Greek.
History does not even show us Matthew wrote that Gospel, but we suppose that by tradition.
Did you think that tradition had no historical component? You did not answer my question. Why is it so important to avoid the reason Jesus changed Peter’s name?
Using ‘petra’, alone is in the feminine sense. Matthew referred to Peter in the male sense, which is ‘petros’. But, reading scriptures within scriptures, the whole argument is moot when we see Christ originally called Simon, Cephas, which is Aramaic which does not use gender nouns.
You haven’t answered my question. Why doesn’t the author use petros-petros but petros-petra?
What does this supposed to mean? Is Matthew no longer a part of the inspired word of God?
The author did not use it twice, or I’m not understanding what you’re saying.
Nah. I’m not saying that. I said that we can’t know whether Matthew is the author of that book. He could just as well been other disciple or apostle.
Why are you disgarding Christ calling Simon Bar-Jona, Cephas, as recorded by John?
Also, still no comment on my detailed explanation on the location, as well as the announcement? An explanations considering the culture, the times and reading scriptures within scriptures. Isn’t that how you say we should receive an interpretation?
So we should check with the ‘final authority’?
But why didn’t he use ‘petros’ for the rock on which the Church was built on as well?
Because the author didn’t know that people in our modern time would accept a man called by a woman’s name. Something such as that in the times and culture then, could have resulted in a ‘stoning’. The author, in the Greek texts, used the male sense referring to a man, but used the correct sense in using a large rock for the foundation.
So? It is a very good place to declare that He will build His church on the fact that He is the Messiah the Son of the Living God.
And the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit is the substitute (or vicar) of Christ on the Earth while He is gone. You’re not going to tell me that the Pope is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, are you? That would be going too far.
The King needs a ‘physical’ prime minister in his ‘physical’ absence. You are deliberately twisting my words to make it sound as if I said something I did not. It appears you’ve decided to stop being honest in this discussion. I’m sorry if the truth is too much for you to handle. Christ gave the keys to Peter. He promised Peter and the other Apostles He would guide them and be with them, through the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth.
No He doesn’t.
God promised the Holy Spirit to all believers.
Then why, much longer after Samuel was written, did Isaiah write:
Just as Peter referred to Psalms when speaking of the need to ‘fulfill scriptures’ and fill the office of Judas, the Apostles understood Christ giving the keys to Peter, His prime minister, in His earthly absence. They understood Peter having the authority to bind and loose, or open and shut.
Do you consider this fair, or an honest discussion? Why not provide the scriptures you’re referring to, so that we can discuss the proper interpretation together? Am I to just assume you are correct without you even providing the passage you’re relying on?