What's your Church's teaching on Matthew 16:18 and why?

[GaryTaylor]

Actually, Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek (so there is no “original Greek” manuscript per se), i.e., the whole petros/petra is a non-issue really as Matthew was written originally in Aramaic, and rock in aramaic is “Kephas” (in Greek the word for rock is petra, but that is a feminine noun, which of course could not be a name attributed to a male, thus the change to Petros).

catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php

A for effort B+ for content?

 

[josie_L]

A for effort B+ for content?

:extrahappy:

 

[Cathoholic]

Here are some of the common denials I run across about St. Peter being the Rock.

We addressed objection number 1. Now I want to skip ahead to number 3.

1. 
   *]Context issues
   *]Petros/Petra issues
   *]Closely related “Original Greek manuscripts” issues
   *]Peter’s confession of faith as the Rock issues
   *]Jesus is the only Rock and Foundation issues
   *]“Get thee behind me satan” issues
   *]No evidence of Petrine primacy in Scripture so Jesus CAN’T be naming Simon “Rock”
   
   josie L said:
   

   Actually, Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek (so there is no “original Greek” manuscript per se), i.e., the whole petros/petra is a non-issue really . . . . ).

   I think josie L. is correct. At least that is what the patristic evidence seems to assert. I have asked for evidence otherwise, and have not found a sufficient reason to believe any thing else.
   
   I have some patristic quotes that I will post (I have collected them over a long time) so everyone here may easily copy them for their “Papacy files” (and maybe add to them if I missed some). I include the patristic death dates just to show how ancient these understandings were (they are not from the 1500’s or 1800’s or some such thing).
   
   Scholars agree that most of the New Testament was written in Greek originally. Matthew’s Gospel is the exception though.
   
   St. Matthew’s Gospel was probably originally written in a Hebrew language Semitic variant called Aramaic. This is the language that Jesus and His Apostles would have spoken from day to day commonly. Let’s look at some ancient Church Fathers writings to get more insight into this issue.
   
   St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the 200’s A.D., tells us St. Matthew died in the town of Parthia, but also tells us what the original language of St. Matthew’s gospel was. Let’s read on and find out. . . .
   
   **ST. HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME ** Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there. Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia.
   And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. . . .
   — St. Hippolytus of Rome
   
   St. Hippolytus of Rome Died in 235 A.D. These are very ancient writings!
   
   Let’s listen to Origen writing on this topic in the 200’s A.D. . . .
   
   ORIGEN Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.
   — Origen. “The Unity and Harmony of Scripture; Second Book.”
   
   Origen Died in 253 A.D. These are ancient writings.
   
   St. Cyril of Jerusalem is appealing here to unbelieving Hebrews . . .
   
   ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM “They were Hebrews who wrote that history; so were all the Apostles Hebrews: why then do ye disbelieve the Jews? Matthew who wrote the Gospel wrote it in the Hebrew tongue; and Paul the preacher was a Hebrew of the Hebrews; and the twelve Apostles were all of Hebrew race: then fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem were appointed in succession from among the Hebrews. What then is your reason for allowing your own accounts, and rejecting ours, though these also are written by Hebrews from among yourselves.” . . .
   —St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures #14
   
   St. Cyril of Jerusalem Died in 386 A.D.
   
   Continued next post . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

Consider the early Church historian Eusebius writing in the 300’s and **quoting **Bishop and Saint Papias of Hierapolis (Papias’ writings are no longer available except in quotes from other ancient Church Fathers and fragments). Papias wrote in the about 120 A.D.

St. Irenaeus called Papias “a hearer of John and a companion to Polycarp, a man of old time.” Polycarp himself incidentally, was ordained by the beloved disciple John.

What did Papias himself think was the original language of St. Matthew’s Gospel? Let’s find out . . .

ST. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one of them interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated . . . .
—St. Papias of Hierapolis; writing in approximately 120 A.D.!

(Ancient Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quoting St. Papias in Eusebius’ “Church History,” Book III, Chapter XXXIX “The Writings of Papias.” Eusebius himself died in 341 A.D.)

I’ve seen floating around the internet the charge that the affirmation of Hebrew authorship of St. Matthew’s Gospel was a Jehovah’s Witnesses conspiracy saying, " none of these fathers, not even Papias himself, was able to name a single person who had seen - not to say handled - this alleged Hebrew Matthew".

This is utter nonsense. Listen to St. Jerome on this point . . . .

ST. JEROME Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. . . . .
— St. Jerome. “The Lives of Illustrious Men. Chapter 3.”

St. Jerome Died in 420 A.D.

Below is an excerpt from our local Bible study on this subject . . .

There is NOT ONE ancient Church Father that asserts St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek (and many that DO assert it was written in Hebrew)!

What difference does it make if the original transcripts were originally in Hebrew instead of Greek? How does this fact cancel out any claims on the petros/petra argument we’ve already seen put forth?

It makes a big difference and completely negates the petros/petra argument. Why?

Because in Aramaic there is only ONE WORD for “rock”—“kepha” or “kephas” (Cephas = Greek transliteration), so there wouldn’t be any distinction the first time Jesus names Peter rock and the second time when Jesus describes Peter’s function. They would both be the same words used by Jesus and by St. Matthew.

People often ignore or distort the context of Matthew 16:18 to come up with the invention that Simon is not the “Rock” that Jesus refers to here.

Ironically, these “Bible-ALONE” followers base this distortion on occasional ancient non-Biblical Greek literature use of petros (such as plays, poetry, etc.).

And admittedly sometimes “petros” is used that way in ancient non-Biblical pagan literature, but only sometimes in this literature (and “petros” being used as “small stone” or “pebble” is not used this way anytime in Scripture but rather “lithos/lithoi”).

Again, this usage of “Petros” meaning “little pebble” in Biblical Greek is NOWHERE in Scripture either.

An odd assertion for someone who says they base their whole faith on the Bible and the Bible alone—they turn to ancient pagan Greek literature sources which only sometimes use petros this way, to support their objection.

With the context as strong as it is, we would either have to not believe Scripture, not believe Jesus, or just plain refuse to submit our minds and hearts and wills to such a teaching to carry on such a game.

Authority is the real issue here. Everyone wants to be their own authority.

I guarantee that if Matthew 16:18 would have used the word “petra” (female gender) for Peter instead of “petros”, the protestors would be crying . . .

“Petra is a female gender ending. Back in those days women had no authority. It is CLEAR Jesus is telling us Peter had no authority! Therefore I get to be my own pope. I mean the Holy Spirit and I are left to interpret the Bible for myself!”

And so it goes.

 

[Cathoholic]

And I found two more patristic sources on that suggest original Hebrew manuscripts as well (that I did not list yet so I will list them for your archives and if you are engaged in Catholic apologetics you will be glad to have these quotes).

One from St. Irenaeus, and the other from St. Epiphanius.

First a quote from St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus (circa 115 A.D. – AD 202) himself was a direct “hearer of Polycarp”. St. Polycarp was according to ancient tradition, “a disciple of John the Evangelist”. So this is quite ancient. And it is a treasure that we still have some of this stuff considering all the persecutions we as Christians went through in the early Church (with not only killings of us as Christians, but book burnings as well—and remember there were no printing presses, so to burn a book might be very close to or actually be extinguishing all copies of a given book/scroll).

ST. IRENAEUS 1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

1. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.
   —St. Irenaeus—Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 1

St. Irenaeus proclaims St. Matthew’s Gospel as “among the Hebrews in their own dialect” without any felt need to defend it.

Next, St. Epiphanius.

 

[Cathoholic]

St. Epiphanius also wrote a work against heresies. A sort of medicine chest against the disease of heresy called, “The Panarion” (Medicine Chest).

In it St. Epiphanius castigates the Ebionites (a group of ancient heretics) on their false Hebrew copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel.

Admittedly St. Epiphanius doesn’t specifically say the Ebionites were trying to pass this off as “original” but the implication of that can be drawn.

If St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and the Ebionite heretics were trying to pass off a counterfeit Gospel of Matthew (and they were trying to pass off a phony Gospel), what language would you expect the Ebionites to write this counterfeit Gospel in? Hebrew.

If St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek and the Ebionite heretics were trying to pass off a counterfeit Gospel of Matthew, what language would you expect the Ebionites to write this counterfeit Gospel in? Greek.

So you’ve got to ask yourself a question at this point.

What language did the Ebionites try to pass off as “the original Gospel of Matthew” in?

The answer is Hebrew.

So the next obvious question you would have to ask yourself is:

Would the Ebionite heretics try to pass off a counterfeit as being authentic in a different language then the already known and accepted real language of St. Matthew’s Gospel?

No.

In other words if St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek and the Ebionite heretics were trying to pass off a counterfeit Gospel of Matthew, they would have made their counterfeit in Greek. But they didn’t. The Ebionites made their counterfeit in Hebrew.

This also suggests the original manuscripts/scrolls of St. Matthew’s Gospel was Hebrew. Why?

Well imagine if a criminal tried to counterfeit US currency. Imagine if they wrote the phony dollars in anything but English!

This would be laughable. Can you imagine a US dollar that says: “Federal Reserve Note” in say, Chinese?

And then this same criminal is going to try to pass this off at a local Wal Mart or a mom and pop grocery store as “an American dollar”??

It wouldn’t make sense. Likewise it wouldn’t have made sense for the Ebionite heretics to try to pass off an “original Matthew’s Gospel” in any language but the original language it was propagated in—that’d be Hebrew.

It would be like showing a French copy of the Constitution at a museum, and calling that “the original” despite everybody knowing the “original” US Constitution was originally penned in English.

It would not make any sense.

The Ebionites tried to pass off phony manuscripts apparently as original in the Hebrew language. This suggests the originals were in Hebrew too.

Listen to St. Epiphanius (circa 310-403 A.D.) . . . .

ST. EPIPHANIUS But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion—because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained.

Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing ‘Hebrew’! . . . .

—St. Epiphanius. The Panarion (Medicine Chest). Portion against The Ebionites. (Part 30, chapter 13, 1 and 2a)

Someone might object and say: “Well the Ebionites didn’t even have the full Gospel of Matthew. This is a lousy counterfeit”.

I agree. I am sure they had a butchered version on purpose.

And admittedly the St. Epiphanius quote it in and of itself is not conclusive, but when you look at all the other evidence along with this evidence, it certainly is pretty close to being conclusive.

This is all more patristic evidence that St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. And again, I am not aware of anything at all that states St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in any language other than the Hebrew tongue (Aramaic).

There are those who say the Greek suggests originality (that is their opinion), but there are also those who suggest otherwise too.

. . . This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew’s Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).

This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. . . .

(source from Catholic Answers)

We have seen evidence–patristic evidence and it all points to an original manuscript of St. Matthew’s Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.

 

[MartinJordan]

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

"Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, “Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, ‘I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.’” This is Jesus talking, "'Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.

I would think even St. Paul would agree. Because despite his admonition on St. Peter he still called him kephas. In respect to his office.

MJ

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would think even St. Paul would agree. Because despite his admonition on St. Peter he still called him kephas. In respect to his office.

MJ

Veto power, I have to assume its the check and balance of the apostles and bishops today.

Still everyone is called to communion with Peters Chair, even if your disagree with Peter. They are suppose to disagree in communion like the apostles.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Actually, Matthew was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek (so there is no “original Greek” manuscript per se), i.e., the whole petros/petra is a non-issue really because rock in aramaic is “Kephas” (in Greek the word for rock is petra, but that is a feminine noun, which of course could not be a name attributed to a male, thus the change to Petros/pebble).

catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php

Hmmm

Isn’t Faith a femenine like Wisdom? Then, how can a claim for the declaration hold the change in gender?

Just thinking out loud

 

[dmwessel]

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

What is the significance of Jesus saying, “You are Peter” and is “Peter” the same word as “rock” that Jesus will build His Church on?

What’s your Church’s official teaching on this exact phrase?

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture but that Jesus is the rock (the chief cornerstone/the foundation rock/stone). The gates of hell won’t prevail against it because *Jesus * is the foundation.

God never builds on the foundation of man but on Jesus alone.

“Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Matt. 21:42)

Jesus quoted this from Psalm’s 118:22-24. And the stone which *the builders *** rejected ** is clearly referring to Jesus.

 

[MilesVitae]

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture but that Jesus is the rock (the chief cornerstone/the foundation rock/stone). The gates of hell won’t prevail against it because *Jesus * is the foundation.

God never builds on the foundation of man but on Jesus alone.

Christ is, of course, the rock on which all things are built - but this does not mean others cannot also be called “rocks,” as long as it is understood that they do not stand alone, but only in union with Christ. Ephesians 2:20, for instance, calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundations of Christ’s household, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.

 

[Cathoholic]

Dmwessel quote:

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture.

Here are just a few examples from Scripture (and the Catholic Church) where Simon is EXPLICITLY called “Rock” (Cephas).

MATTHEW 16:18 18 And I tell you, you are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

And consider Jesus’ prophecy (you SHALL be called Cephas. Not: “You are NOW CALLED Cephas”. Didn’t Jesus’ prophecy come true dmwessel?):

JOHN 1:41-42 41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Here are a couple examples (there are others too).

1st CORINTHIANS 15:1-5 1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast–unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

GALATIANS 1:18 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

I will look at your other objections later (hint: They are a partial truth and end up denying Sacred Scripture for another tradition of men that makes void God’s word).

Summary comparison:

dmwessel

• Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture

Sacred Scripture:

• You are Cephas (Rock) and upon this Cephas (Rock) I will build my Church.—Jesus to St. Peter Matthew 16:18.
• So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (Rock)
• He (Jesus) appeared to Cephas (Rock), then to the twelve
• . . . after three years I (St. Paul) went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Rock)

One of these assertions are Scriptural. One of these assertions is a tradition of men that makes void the word of God.

 

[adrift]

Hmmm

Isn’t Faith a femenine like Wisdom? Then, how can a claim for the declaration hold the change in gender?

Just thinking out loud

I am not sure I understand your point. Where is there a man named faith or wisdom in scripture?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not sure I understand your point. Where is there a man named faith or wisdom in scripture?

Since the biggest argument against Peter being the rock - but his confession of Faith. It would make no sense in making a gender specific declaration by Christ. Instead of using a feminine noun for rock, He used the masculine noun - thus, making a clear distinction of the rock being Peter.

 

[adrift]

Since the biggest argument against Peter being the rock - but his confession of Faith. It would make no sense in making a gender specific declaration by Christ. Instead of using a feminine noun for rock, He used the masculine noun - thus, making a clear distinction of the rock being Peter.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[MartinJordan]

Veto power, I have to assume its the check and balance of the apostles and bishops today.

Still everyone is called to communion with Peters Chair, even if your disagree with Peter. They are suppose to disagree in communion like the apostles.

MJ

 

[dmwessel]

Christ is, of course, the rock on which all things are built - but this does not mean others cannot also be called “rocks,” as long as it is understood that they do not stand alone, but only in union with Christ. Ephesians 2:20, for instance, calls the Apostles and Prophets the foundations of Christ’s household, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.

Yes but again it was mentioned as the rock as in only one rock, which can only be Christ.

 

[dmwessel]

Dmwessel

(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11614863&postcount=181”):

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture.

Here are just a few examples from Scripture (and the Catholic Church) where Simon is EXPLICITLY called “Rock” (Cephas).

MATTHEW 16:18 18 And I tell you, you are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

And consider Jesus’ prophecy (you SHALL be called Cephas. Not: “You are NOW CALLED Cephas”. Didn’t Jesus’ prophecy come true dmwessel?):

JOHN 1:41-42 41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

Here are a couple examples (there are others too).

1st CORINTHIANS 15:1-5 1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast–unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

GALATIANS 1:18 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

I will look at your other objections later (hint: They are a partial truth and end up denying Sacred Scripture for another tradition of men that makes void God’s word).

Summary comparison:

dmwessel

• Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture

Sacred Scripture:

• You are Cephas (Rock) and upon this Cephas (Rock) I will build my Church.—Jesus to St. Peter Matthew 16:18.

• So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (Rock)

• He (Jesus) appeared to Cephas (Rock), then to the twelve

• . . . after three years I (St. Paul) went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Rock)

One of these assertions are Scriptural. One of these assertions is a tradition of men that makes void the word of God.

You have to find other verses that speak of the same topic and the verse that was quoted is vague at best. Yes Simon means stone, but stone also means “plummet” and plummet also means ‘measuring line’ and measuring line also means ‘justice and righteousness’ (as in God’s). God would build his church not upon Peter, but upon the rock/stone (justice and righteousness via God’s words) - Jesus being* the word made flesh*.

Further there is the following:

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
" (1 Cor. 1:11-13)

“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Ga. 2:9)

Paul made James and John equal to Cephas and not only that but Paul rebuked Peter publicly in Gal. 2:14. Peter was a pillar, yes, but he is not ‘the’ rock, only Jesus. Why would we need another in Jesus’ stead?

 

[Cathoholic]

Dmwessel you stated:

Quote:

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture.

I showed you 4 verses where it explicitly calls Simon Peter “Rock”.

You said:

Quote:

the verse that was quoted is vague at best.

No it wasn’t vague. It was explicit—all four of them were explicit (here).

Then you then cite Galatians 2 and 1st Corinthians 1, both of which ALSO specifically explicitly refer to Simon Peter as “Cephas” (“Rock”).

If you want, we can discuss what “Rock” means and doesn’t mean, but your position of Peter never being called “Rock” in Scripture (“he is never called that in scripture”) is just false. It is UN-Biblical.

Quote:

My position is this, that Peter was not the rock as he is never called that in scripture.

And it doesn’t help your position when you CITE verses specifically referring to Peter as “rock” or “Cephas” . . . . .
. . . . . to DENY Peter as “Rock” or Cephas.

This is what happens when you venture off onto “the island of private interpretation” dmwessel.

Kephas is the Aramaic word for Rock.

The Greek transliteration of “Kephas” (Rock) is “Cephas” (Rock).

Simon Peter is explicitly called “Rock” in Scripture–many times.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

:tiphat:

Sometimes what I type doesn’t match what is going on in my brain