Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Randy_Carson]

Who used “little pebble”, my Greek states a stone or small rock. I guess compared to the size of the petra, whether a small rock, stone or pebble would make little difference in the comparison. Disproven???

Little pebble, small stone…I’ve seen all of these desciptions used to minimize Peter. But this attempt fails as knowledgable Protestant scholars admit.

John Broadus (Baptist)

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession”

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.”

*“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” *[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

So, a Baptist Greek Scholar agrees. Peter is the Rock.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If all we needed was Peter as Pope, why did Jesus give the Keys of Heaven to all the disciples, 2 chapters later in Matthew 18?

There is no mention of keys anywhere in Matthew 18.

However, since you asked about this…

Luther on the Keys

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” (*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Peter realize he was the first Pope?

The term “pope” is a modern term used to describe the office that Peter received from Jesus.

Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Why was Paul writing Epistles to the Romans if Peter was there as Pope?

What’s wrong with Peter writing to a church he planned to visit?

After the laying on of hands for a bishop does this then happen to Priests?

Yes. Priests are ordained by bishops.

Can a Priest do the laying on of hands or only the Bishop?

Ordination of bishops, priests and deacons can only be performed by bishops.

Some have said that the rock is the faith of Peter. The rock is the truth that Peter uttered.

Not according to Protestant Greek scholars.

Do Catholics believe that the other disciples were allowed to perform the loosing and binding after Jesus gave them the Keys of Heaven right then when Jesus said it or did Peter perform the maneuver of laying on of the hands first?

Jesus gave the keys to Peter only. Matthew 18 has no reference to keys. However, all of the Apostles had the authority to bind and loose.

The 4 Books of the Gospel, really all we need to be Christians was always considered to be “approved” scripture even when first written. It never had to be decided on.

The canon of the NT which you have today was determined by the Catholic Councils beginning in the fourth century.

Randy Carson – “Sure, earthly leaders may make mistakes, but the Catholic Church has never taught doctrinal error and the pope has never formally declared doctrinal error ex cathedra”

Of course the Church has taught doctrinal errors otherwise there wouldn’t have been a split.

The Catholic Church has never taught doctrinal error. Since not everyone agrees, some divisions have ocurred.

Do Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit works for all Christians, just some or only Catholics?

All Christians…but not all are led equally by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from formally teaching error. Clearly, other denominations do not experience this protection.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Discredited by who?

Protestant Greek scholars.

Would you dare cite other well known theological scholars who would beg to differ? Of course not. So why should I accept your bias?

My bias? My point is only to show you that some Protestant Greek scholars admit that Peter is the rock. The number and quality of these men are not small.

It would be one thing if the Scripture did not clarify itself, but it does on this position you are biased toward and the Scriptural bias is contrary to your bias for the Scripture says: 1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew knew exactly what he was writing and Luke’s account doesn’t bother to mention it.

This error results from mixing metaphors. Consider carefully:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.”

Who wrote that? A Protestant.

(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

The books are available, they just do not sell well because there are better works to chose from.

Not to my surprise, if you compare all of them together, a few use the Aramaic argument, which is baseless and not useful since we have no Aramaic NT manuscripts… And some use arguments that are contrary to each other. So what can we say in light of the whole picture? Plenty of speculation to avoid what is written compared to the rest of Scripture which unlocks what it means and equally important, what it does not mean.

This is simply a dismissive attempt to ignore what you do not want to hear.

Look if your religion teaches that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus builds His church, then that is factual for you because perception is ones reality. I have no problem with what you choose to believe or don’t believe; that is prerogative and God deals justly with all.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is not the only source of this teaching, and that is what has you vexed.

I only expect to be treated with the same respect, which to this point has been somewhat disappointing, but I had no idea of what to expect when I got here, but i am getting the idea, which means I probably will go elsewhere to find more information. I assumed that speaking to people who are devout would give more insights than just reading stuff online, but I may have been mistaken on that presumption.

I’m more than happy to treat you with respect, but I’m not going to sugar-coat the facts, either. Peter is called “Cephas” in four places in the NT because the man - and not the man’s confession - was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church.

1. 
   *]John 1:42
   And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
   *][1 Corinthians 1:12](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+1:12&version=NIV)
   What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, “I follow Christ.”
   *][1 Corinthians 3:22](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+3:22&version=NIV)
   whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
   *][1 Corinthians 9:5](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+9:5&version=NIV)
   Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 1:15 is the one time an Apostle, not an apostles like Timothy and Mark, was ever replaced and it was by God. So how does this equate to Apostolic succession beyond Mathias? I don’t follow.

2 Timothy 2 is ever further away than Acts 1; their is no succession in the terms or context you have identified. This is Paul telling Timothy to remember to teach others the same as he has been taught concerning the gospel. Very confusing to me how this is succession. Does your church use these passages to show legitimacy from Scripture leading to the Pope? As opposed to your own understanding apart from what the Catholic church teaches.

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

 

[Dokimas]

Originally Posted by Teneas
I would also ask this:

If a family teaches to be kind to others, take care of the needy, and all the other “good” things that are to be done in life. Lets say that members of that family sometimes do things that are not considered “good”, so to speak, does that make that family wrong for their teachings?

Nope. That’s not the issue (people in the CC doing wrong).​

 

[Dokimas]

Then stop arguing and start listening.

I honestly don’t care much about my misunderstandings of non-Catholics. May sound harsh, but until you non-Catholic Christians can pull together and actually decide for once, with unity, what you believe, I know full well there is little truth in what you speak. Not saying you don’t know Christ, as I am sure most do that are Christian. Just saying I can’t see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit up in heaven debating doctrine, and scripture. They are united, unlike those like yourself and others that claim the same.

It is not up to me what others believe on an issue. It’s up to me to look, listen, think and obey.​

I’ll stop ‘arguing’, which is really making an argument, when you and others satifactrily answer the questions I have when things seem clear in the Bible yet you tell me different things.

 

[Dokimas]

How did a ‘saying’ receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose on earth?

Two different things.​

From Robertson’s NT Word Studies.
The Keys of the kingdom (~τας κλεις της βασιλειας~). Here again
we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside.
The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same
thing by “kingdom” that he did by “church” in verse #Mt 16:18. In
#Re 1:18 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has “the keys of death and of
Hades.” He has also “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he here
hands over to Peter as “gatekeeper” or “steward” (~οικονομος~)
provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar
prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter
belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of
papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of
Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all
quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually
disputing again {#Mt 18:1} as to which of them is the greatest in
the kingdom of heaven as they will again {#Mt 20:21} and even on
the night before Christ’s death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest
understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme
authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as
every preacher and teacher does. To “bind” (~δησης~) in rabbinical
language is to forbid, to “loose” (~λυσης~) is to permit. Peter
would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school
of Hillel “loosed” many things that the school of Schammai “bound.”
The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers
οφ Χηριστ. Νοτε τηε φυτυρε περφεχτ ινδιχατιςε (~εσται δεδεμενον,
εσται λελυμενον~), a state of completion. All this assumes, of
course, that Peter’s use of the keys will be in accord with the
teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by
Jesus to all the disciples. {#Mt 18:18} Later after the
Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the
disciples, {#Joh 20:23} showing that it was not a special
prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, @primus inter
pares@, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of
all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to
pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language
that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses
the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in
Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in
Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more
personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of
Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift
away from him.​

Makes much more sense to me.

 

[Dokimas]

[SIGN]YADA wrote:
"This is where Jesus gives us His Mother … who also is present at the birth of the Church Pentecost …
Jesus says from the Cross:

“Woman behold your Son” and then to the Apostle Whom he loved
“Son behold your Mother and from that day he took her to himself”"[/SIGN]​

I can see clearly now that what it really says is “Mary you are now the mother of all who believe in me.”​

Actually you make fun of my understanding then you make a statement about a verse and you do what you accuse me of doing. If you look carefully and think about it, your understanding about Mary being the mother of us all is quite far fetched looking at the verses you site. My understanding that Jesus built His church on the truth that He is the Christ the Son of the Living God is much easier to see.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I’m more than happy to treat you with respect, but I’m not going to sugar-coat the facts, either. Peter is called “Cephas” in four places in the NT because the man - and not the man’s confession - was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church.

1. 
   *]John 1:42
   And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
   *][1 Corinthians 1:12](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+1:12&version=NIV)
   What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, “I follow Christ.”
   *][1 Corinthians 3:22](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+3:22&version=NIV)
   whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
   *][1 Corinthians 9:5](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+9:5&version=NIV)
   Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?

1. 
   Thank you for your many informative posts, Randy.
   
   In my opinion, the instances where Peter is called by the Aramaic name Cephas (which is Rock in Aramaic), totally destroy the argument of those who play the Petros-Petra distinction, or try to deny that the Rock refers to the person of Simon whose name was changed by Jesus into Cephas (Rock). You can’t get much clearer than what Jesus foretold in John 1:42, and did in Matthew 16:18.
   
   It’s amazing how far we fallen humans will go to deny the truth when we don’t like it, no matter how clearly it is presented to us.
   
   I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your posts; I learned a lot from them.

 

[Carlan]

So does the church believe the Bible is the Word of God? The early church writers called the vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit. At what point did a person(s) take that title and duties associated away from the Holy Spirit? Is there a first reference to the Vicar of Christ title being used by the Pope and if so, what was the date? If you have a reference link; that would be great…thanks for your charitable replies.

Of course the Church believes the Bible is the word of God it goes without saying to the enlightened. BTW where do you think the Bible came from if not from the early successors of Christ’s Apostles.Excuse my crassness but did you think it dropped out of the sky ?

MS, I believe Catholic Answers is a wonderful source for us to share the Truth of what we believe as Christians. Everyone is welcome to the discussion. But in the end you either accept the Truth we share or you don’t and then move on. What is the point of arguing? For arguments sake?. I don’t l ike it. Polemics just drives us further apart,Christ’s desire is for the unity of his flock. Please God be gracious to us and bless us and let your light shine upon us.Carlan

 

[Carlan]

Thank you for your many informative posts, Randy.

In my opinion, the instances where Peter is called by the Aramaic name Cephas (which is Rock in Aramaic), totally destroy the argument of those who play the Petros-Petra distinction, or try to deny that the Rock refers to the person of Simon whose name was changed by Jesus into Cephas (Rock). You can’t get much clearer than what Jesus foretold in John 1:42, and did in Matthew 16:18.

It’s amazing how far we fallen humans will go to deny the truth when we don’t like it, no matter how clearly it is presented to us.

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your posts; I learned a lot from them.

I second your post Joseph, and I also appreciate Randy , he is a fine Apololgist as are so many of the others roaming the forums. Thank you! and God Bless, Carlan.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks, guys.

:tiphat:

 

[schaick]

Sorry if I seem a bit dense – Just trying to trying to sort all this out- see how much of a heathen you believe me to be!

Randy Carson-“*There is no mention of keys anywhere in Matthew 18.” *

**Yes, you are right the words Keys of Heaven are not in the later discussion but then that argument shoots many Catholic arguments for other doctrines in the foot. Your statement and Prodigal Son1 comment about the statement of truth can not receive keys. Makes me wonder-What do you believe the Keys of Heaven to be?

Right now today- does only the Pope hold the Keys to Heaven or does this include Bishops and Priests? **

*Luther on the Keys- * **Yes I see Luther does believe this, Luther was ordained as a Priest. Did he receive the Keys of Heaven through laying on of the hands? Yet Luther was excommunicated trying to correct a horrible man-made tradition of selling indulgences for money?

Do Catholics have a list of all the people that were ordained-laying on of the hands by the first disciples and each succession after that? **

[www1.church-of-god.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=18200](Prodigal Son1)
Pheme Perkins, a Boston College professor and a Roman Catholic, made the following summary in her award-winning book, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church: “Since we have no evidence of when Peter arrived in Rome or the circumstances that led to his execution, later claims that he was bishop in a Roman community must rest on traditions about the apostle which emerged in the second century. For the first century of its existence, there was probably not a single bishop in the Roman church.” Perkins opines that Anicetus (ca. 154–165 C.E.) was probably the first bishop over the entire church at Rome, whereas others listed before him oversaw individual house churches—small groups meeting in people’s homes.

**I asked - Why was Paul writing Epistles to the Romans if Peter was there as Pope? As in Romans 1:*11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. ***

**We are talking apples and oranges here- **
“The canon of the NT which you have today was determined by the Catholic Councils beginning in the fourth century.”
The 4 Books of the Gospel, really all we need to be Christians was always considered to be “approved” scripture even when first written. It never had to be decided on.

*The Catholic Church has never taught doctrinal error. *
**Are you saying here that the Pope has never instituted something that was not mentioned in the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or are you including the Apocrypha?

Do Catholics believe that Peter was infallible when he was refusing to eat with the uncircumcised Gentiles in Galatians 2:11-16?

Do Catholics believe the divisions of Christianity to be that we simply celebrate the one universal church of Jesus differently? Or that we do not follow the basic truths that Jesus taught?**

*“Not according to Protestant Greek scholars”-*Some

When I say we- I am saying all those people that profess that the One True GOD is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that GOD gave HIS Son Jesus, GOD’s WORD incarnate to die for us that we all be saved.

Well I’m off to Praise GOD with some heathens, but I’ll be back later!!

 

[Teneas]

It is not up to me what others believe on an issue. It’s up to me to look, listen, think and obey.​

I’ll stop ‘arguing’, which is really making an argument, when you and others satifactrily answer the questions I have when things seem clear in the Bible yet you tell me different things.

The only issue with your statement at all, is that you won’t be satisfied until we agree with your own individual thoughts. It won’t happen, so I would stop looking for it.

I have no doubt you are a Christian man, and hold Christ dear. So never doubt that I believe that please. I am simply trying to help show you what we believe. Arguments against what we believe will get little ground. Even if one of us stops believing in what we believe, the Church will always stand strong, and pray for those that would speak words of ill against it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**The 4 Books of the Gospel, really all we need to be Christians **was always considered to be “approved” scripture even when first written. It never had to be decided on.

Can you please provide the documentation for the above statement, since it’s not listed in scriptures anywhere?

 

[Masters_Servant]

Correction based on my own error due to ignorance. For all.

Not to my surprise, if you compare all of them together, a few use the Aramaic argument, which is baseless and not useful since we have no Aramaic NT manuscripts… And some use arguments that are contrary to each other. So what can we say in light of the whole picture? Plenty of speculation to avoid what is written compared to the rest of Scripture which unlocks what it means and equally important, what it does not mean.

I need to make a correction based on further study concerning the NT Aramaic, it appears there is an Aramaic NT that has been translated into English. I would love to own a copy, but would need to further study as to why this is not used extensively through Christianity. Does anyone have a copy of one? If so, give all of us a brief rundown to what you have discovered or noticed.

 

[chrisb]

St. Peter…

 

[Masters_Servant]

Who do you think the Apostles passed on what they learned from Jesus? Who continued the mission of spreading the Good News, Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Who continued making disciples of all nations.??? Its common belief the the Church continued to fluorish even under persecution.After Acts 28 the church lived continuosly until now because the Church is built upon the Rock. Paul was called by Jesus and went to meet the Apostles. What he learned he passed on. In your own personal context its not qualified. Its typical.

Maybe unlearned people think that when the Apostles died the Bible was written and got distributed? How about your church? What does it teach you? I don’t like to misrepresent your belief whan someone asked me about certain belief of other churches?

Would you kindly answer the question(s) I asked in the previous post? That’s all I’m asking. My Pastor teaches exclusively from the Bible.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Correction based on my own error due to ignorance. For all.

I need to make a correction based on further study concerning the NT Aramaic, it appears there is an Aramaic NT that has been translated into English. I would love to own a copy, but would need to further study as to why this is not used extensively through Christianity. Does anyone have a copy of one? If so, give all of us a brief rundown to what you have discovered or noticed.

Hello Masters Servant,

Even though you say you will not ‘dialogue’ with me, I can tell you where to get two copies for your pc. I have a program called esword, it’s free and you can find it at esword.net. The two translated versions of Aramaic to English are Murdock and Etheridge. You can get these at esnips.com/doc/c27eda81-d398-4cc4-ac94-9f0242eac727/Aramaic-Peshitta-NT-Bibles----SQLite-Data-base-for-Latest-Esword–9.0. Esword is from a Protestant website and the Aramaic Peshitta NT Bibles are provided by a Catholic. I only mention this to be upfront with you and to let you decide for yourself if you trust the sources or not. If I’m not mistaken, I believe one of the translated Bibles is available through esword. It’s the James Murdock version and it’s also free.