Was Peter "the rock" or a little stone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Knight

Guest
Having a discussion on another board regarding Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church and we’re getting into areas that I am not that knowledgable in …
**
Petros**, pet’-ros; apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than Greek 3037 (lithos)); as a name, Petrus, an apostle :- Peter, rock.
petra, pet’-ra; feminine of the same as Greek 4074 (Petros); a (mass of) rock (literal or figurative) :- rock.
  • and that difference is the difference in the meaning of the passage. You are right that it wouldn’t be correct to call Peter “petra”, but you don’t seem to grasp that that just further proves my point that Jesus wasn’t referring to Peter as the rock to built the church on, but rather Peter’s confession of faith. The church is built on faith in Christ, and in Christ alone.
… If anyone can help, I’d greatly appreciate it or if anybody wants to join in, the discussion is going on here.
 
The “petros/petra” line of reasoning has been debunked on these forums and on the internet countless times. To analyze the use of “petros/petra” in Greek, but one must also consider the original language in which Jesus and his disciples used, Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for rock (Kepha) is exactly the same in both parts of Matt 16:18. I don’t really feel like explaining it all, so here are some links. Hope they help.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a64.htm#ROCK

geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html
 
Yes, our number one “dead horse beater” makes another apperance on CA! 😃
 
Blessed are you Simon…you are a little pebble…here are the keys to Heaven. :hmmm:
 
Sir Knight:
Having a discussion on another board regarding Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church and we’re getting into areas that I am not that knowledgable in … … If anyone can help, I’d greatly appreciate it or if anybody wants to join in, the discussion is going on here.
Sir Knight,

I’ll take a stab at it…
Since the Scriptures were translated from Aramaic to Greek sometimes words lost their true meaning:
The Greek word for rock was Petra – Petra really means* small pebble* in Greek and it was changed to Petros because it was feminine …

The Aramaic word for “Large Rock” was Kepha and again was transliterated to Cephas . Peter is Large Rock not a small pebble…
 
When I see the question, " Was St. Peter the Rock or a little stone" I have a feeling that this was written by a wild-eyed Protestant or a very pooly instructed would-be Catholic.

For the question to asked in this day and time alludes to a possible attempt at stirring up “those ignorant Catholics”.

Books have been writen , some men have studied this question for years and all of the Early Fathers definately write about St. Peter as the leading Bishop which is now called the Pope.

Treaties have been written about the Protestant idea that Stone and pebble were mistranslated from the Greek. That is/was false. If the Protestants could pose an argument that Peter WAS NOT chosen by Jesus as the Leader of the Church on earth THEN they could say that Catholosism was not the church that Christ started. So the whole idea is a house of cards.
 
This “poorly instructed would-be Catholic” could use some assistances in defending the Catholic faith. Would you be so kind as to join me over there and explain things to those that have a misconception about the Catholic faith since I lack the proper instruction to do so on my own? Thank you in advance.
 
The funny thing is…even if they were right (which they aren’t! 😛 )
Jesus still said he would build his church on it.
And if Jesus wants to build his church on a little pebble - who is going to tell him he can’t?
Not me 😃
 
40.png
Lorarose:
The funny thing is…even if they were right (which they aren’t! 😛 )
Jesus still said he would build his church on it.
And if Jesus wants to build his church on a little pebble - who is going to tell him he can’t?
Not me 😃
Well, as the argument follows, Jesus didn’t say He would build the Church on the small pebble, He said He would build it on the large stone “petra,” namely Himself. At least that is the protestant argument.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t this what they are saying?

“Your are a little pebble, and upon this little pebble I will build my Church”…? :confused:
 
40.png
Lorarose:
Correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t this what they are saying?

“Your are a little pebble, and upon this little pebble I will build my Church”…? :confused:
They phrase it:

“You’re a little pebble, and upon this massive stone I will build my Church.”

massive stone=Christ
 
Sir Knight:
Having a discussion on another board regarding Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church and we’re getting into areas that I am not that knowledgable in … … If anyone can help, I’d greatly appreciate it or if anybody wants to join in, the discussion is going on here.
Here’s all you have to do:
  1. ASK your “friend” how many times the word “stone” or “pebble” is used in the entire NT. (About 37)
  2. Ask your friend where it is translated from the original Greek “petros”
  3. If he can show you ONE occasion, join his “sect”
  4. If he cannot show you ONE occasion, he is to join the Catholc Church.
Now we got some REAL consequences for his BS.

Finally:
You are right that it wouldn’t be correct to call Peter “petra”,
Very well, what Greek word EXACTLY, would be correct if you wanted to denote Peter as a Rock identical to “Petra” in meaning, and still maintain the identity with “Petra”?

BTW:
The translation lexicon you illustrated: is it from a Protestant scholar or institution influenced by same? If so, it has an agenda, and is therefore null and void.
 
Sir Knight:
Having a discussion on another board regarding Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church and we’re getting into areas that I am not that knowledgable in … … If anyone can help, I’d greatly appreciate it or if anybody wants to join in, the discussion is going on here.
The individual does not understand the logic of his statement that Peter should not be called “Petra” in the feminine noun. His logic really is a non sequitor and partially begs the question. He assumes from the start that Peter was not the Rock and that Christ spoke at this instance in Greek. You should ask the individual whether they speak or have studied any other languages. If the answer is yes, you can point out the conjugation of nouns common to many languages conjugate nouns relative to their reference. Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
Well, as the argument follows, Jesus didn’t say He would build the Church on the small pebble, He said He would build it on the large stone “petra,” namely Himself. At least that is the protestant argument.
then why did he give Peter the keys to the kingdom and why was Jesus suddenly speaking Greek to Simon Peter? They spoke Aramaic. “Kepha” - Massive boulder.
 
I find this argument so annoying because it is so easily refuted, but it keeps coming up again and again, and the person who seriously uses it thinks it will be this great stumbling block for Catholics, they also always seem to be very proud in their “knowledge” of language, it is a silly argument really. Beat that dead horse and maybe someday it will get up and walk and the Catholics will follow it into a lack of reason.

#1 Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic

#2 aren’t you assuming a whole lot when you claim Jesus was calling Peter Kepha (Aramaic for large stone) and then suddenly pointed to himself and said on this rock I will build my church. IT seems he would have said "On the Rock of the son of Man I will build my Church, or on the Son of God I will build my Church or the Lamb of God . I think he would have been more specific. It doesn’t say "Jesus pointed to Himself saying “on this rock I will build my Church.”

For a group that takes the Bible so literally, they seem to have trouble with the things Jesus speaks plainly about… Mainly regarding the Eucharist and renaming Simon to Peter, Kepha, big rock, because He wanted to establish a visible Church to protect His Traditions by word or By letter. We have to believe that the world was made in exactly 7 days, but what Jesus said, very plainly, is up for grabs?
 
They like to say, “The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to differentiate between the two words for a reason.” Ask them, “How do you know the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire Matthew to give Peter a masculine name?” There is no basis for their argument other than their own presuppositions. It can never be proved that the change was for any reason besides masculinity. For Peter’s sake, I’m glad he got a guy name.
 
Sir Knight:
Having a discussion on another board regarding Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church and we’re getting into areas that I am not that knowledgable in … … If anyone can help, I’d greatly appreciate it or if anybody wants to join in, the discussion is going on here.
You have to remember that in Greek you have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

That’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. But that’s the best you can do in Greek."

"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
 
A “rock” means a big stone, while a pebble means a small stone.
Jesus didn’t say; “You are pebble, and upon this pebble…”

God bless!

Pio
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top