Why do Protestants think

[David]

Basically it is about infallibility, Catholics claim that is tradition while Protestants claim its the bible. Both have compelling arguments to back their case.

Hello TraditionRules. I totally disagree.
I believe the Bible is a Catholic Book. The Bible was intended to be read during worship. It was never intended to be a start your own religion kit.
The Bible shows that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock. The question is Why?

Peace
David

 

[kbachler]

Why do Protestants think that Jesus, changed Simon’s name to Peter?

Peace
David

I believe that, in addition to the serious nature of the addition/change of the name, it was also a well-intentioned bit of humor. Jesus was also apparently making a play on words (something which He did on multiple occasions) – a reflection of Peter’s stature and the general perception that while Peter was not stupid, he also was not quick-witted - seemingly relying upon his strength.

There is an argument that there is a second play on words as well. There is a reasonable (though not definitive) argument that the Greek pretros indicated a pebble, while petra meant boulder or cliff. The argument is then that the rock was Jesus, or Peter’s faith in Jesus, not Peter himself. Note for example that in 1 Cor 10:14 petra is used to describe Jesus.

Also, consider Ephesians 2:20, which indicates that the foundation is the apostles and prophets, not Peter per se.

There is also the argument that the primacy of Peter applied only to Peter - if he was the rock, then irrespective of the succession of primacy he was the rock. Primacy succession is not necessary for Peter to have been the rock on which Christ would build his church.

 

[kbachler]

Protestants are all over the map on Peter. Some will acknowledge that he was the early Church leader and some willl almost deny he is an apostle. The anti-catholic ones are afraid of Peter and will not acknowledge his leadership, that his name means rock, that Christ gave him the keys to the kingdom. They are much more willing to call James the leader of the twelve based on his discource in Acts 15. You can present them with 40 proofs that Peter was the leader of the 12 and they will downplay and ignore and dance around with them. That is my experience.

I’m sorry, I’ve never come across a Christian that denies that Peter is an apostle. It is clear, however, that other apostles also held sway - see Paul’s discourse with Peter.

 

[TraditonRules]

Hello TraditionRules. I totally disagree.
I believe the Bible is a Catholic Book. The Bible was intended to be read during worship. It was never intended to be a start your own religion kit.
The Bible shows that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock. The question is Why?

Peace
David

Disagree, even Christ in numerous times quotes scripture being law. Such as…

…(Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19)…

 

[David]

Disagree, even Christ in numerous times quotes scripture being law. Such as…

…(Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19)…

The Bible shows that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock. The question is Why?

 

[kbachler]

I believe that, in addition to the serious nature of the addition/change of the name, it was also a well-intentioned bit of humor. Jesus was also apparently making a play on words (something which He did on multiple occasions) – a reflection of Peter’s stature and the general perception that while Peter was not stupid, he also was not quick-witted - seemingly relying upon his strength.

There is an argument that there is a second play on words as well. There is a reasonable (though not definitive) argument that the Greek pretros indicated a pebble, while petra meant boulder or cliff. The argument is then that the rock was Jesus, or Peter’s faith in Jesus, not Peter himself. Note for example that in 1 Cor 10:14 petra is used to describe Jesus.

Also, consider Ephesians 2:20, which indicates that the foundation is the apostles and prophets, not Peter per se.

There is also the argument that the primacy of Peter applied only to Peter - if he was the rock, then irrespective of the succession of primacy he was the rock. Primacy succession is not necessary for Peter to have been the rock on which Christ would build his church.

Just realized that I left something out…for clairty I should have said:

There is an argument that there is a second play on words as well. Jesus referred to Simon using the Greek petros. There is a reasonable (though not definitive) argument that the Greek petros indicated a pebble, while petra meant boulder or cliff. The argument is then that the rock was Jesus, or Peter’s faith in Jesus, not Peter himself, who was in fact a pebble. Note for example that in 1 Cor 10:14 petra is used to describe Jesus.

 

[onemangang]

Something worth thinking about: Any time in Scripture when God gives a person a new name, there is a highly significant reason – it is usually because God is giving them a new mission and purpose in life. Think of Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, Jacob/Israel, Saul/Paul, among others. It wasn’t just because God thought Peter was a good, dependable guy.

 

[WFS5801]

as far as I can tell in my discussions with some of them about this passage they don’t think he was called Peter (Cephas or Rock) but Rocky (little pebble) and somehow calling him a little rock affirmed his profession of faith.

The problem with that theory is that Christ spoke in Aramaic and the word for “rock” and “Peter” were identical, Kipha. Even more significant is the fact that Rock (Peter) had never before been used as a proper name.

 

[kbachler]

The problem with that theory is that Christ spoke in Aramaic and the word for “rock” and “Peter” were identical, Kipha. Even more significant is the fact that Rock (Peter) had never before been used as a proper name.

But we don’t know exactly what Christ said in Aramaic, we only know what was conveyed about what was said, and that was written in Greek. So the first part of the argument doesn’t hold. The second part only adds significance, not meaning.

 

[govav8er]

I agree with the previous posts about the significance of the name change as compared to other times in the bible is important to contemplate.(if you are inferring the primacy of Peter)

Also the Aramaic “Kepha” blows the Greek “Petra” vs “petros” argument out of the conversation.

As for the name change, the rest of the verse needs to be considered fully in its context. Especially when you compare it to Isaiah 22: 20-23 and historical context around which the old kingdoms (this one being David’s) were governed when the king was not there. It would be clear that Jesus and the rest of the disciples knew the OT and the significance of kingdom chain of command and realized that Jesus was commissioning Peter in a special way.

Now as why Kepha (Rock) and not something else? (marble, Stone etc) you got me.

My experience with Protestants is they do not put much weight around it because they think the church was built around the faith of his statement and he, Peter, wasn’t the originator of the statement but God.

 

[kbachler]

I agree with the previous posts about the significance of the name change as compared to other times in the bible is important to contemplate.(if you are inferring the primacy of Peter)

Also the Aramaic “Kepha” blows the Greek “Petra” vs “petros” argument out of the conversation.

As for the name change, the rest of the verse needs to be considered fully in its context. Especially when you compare it to Isaiah 22: 20-23 and historical context around which the old kingdoms (this one being David’s) were governed when the king was not there. It would be clear that Jesus and the rest of the disciples knew the OT and the significance of kingdom chain of command and realized that Jesus was commissioning Peter in a special way.

Now as why Kepha (Rock) and not something else? (marble, Stone etc) you got me.

My experience with Protestants is they do not put much weight around it because they think the church was built around the faith of his statement and he, Peter, wasn’t the originator of the statement but God.

Again, the Aramaic argument doesn’t blow the Greek argument out of the conversation. The matter is far from clear for several reasons.

First, In the Greek text, the new name given is Petros and in the second half of the same verse the word translated as “rock” is petra. Protestant’s argue that the Greek is translated from Hebrew. However, there is no evidence that the New Testament (in Greek) was ever translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts.

The Aramaic argument states that cepha (rock), was used for both Peter’s name and for the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church. Literally we would have Jesus saying “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock will I build my church”. The argument then is that the Greek translation is a transliteration to preserve the pun on rock.

However an increasing number of Biblical scholars believe that Jesus and his disciples likely spoke and wrote in Greek. The argument for this is that Greek was the language of government, markets, and every day life in Judea. Aramaic would have been spoken to people far beyond the reach of the Roman cities, and Hebrew wasn’t used except among the the educated religious groups. So, to reach a larger audience, it would be far more practical and sensible if Jesus spoke to Jews and non-Jews alike in Greek

The matter simply isn’t clear.

My experience with Protestants is that they believe in the primacy of Peter, but don’t assume that the primacy extends past Peter.

Newton is the cornerstone of modern physics. But certainly Newtonian physics does not continue in its “sole primacy.”

 

[govav8er]

Ah but the Aramaic does blow it out of the water. Just saying “critics say” or whatever is not proof that they all spoke Greek. Jesus wasn’t hanging around with merchants and the like but fishermen, carpenters etc. Serious blue collar dudes where needing Greek would not be necessary. Judea was the only, I think, Kindom/land that was left alone and wasn’t subject to Romanism due to the fact that religion and government were one there. It was definitley unique.

Greek is similar to Latin in that nouns are either feminine or masculine. Anyone that speaks a romance language would agree and know what I’m talking about. The writers of the inspired word of God whether translating the Word from a previous text or the spoken tradition of the Word, would have choice to make. Can that person when writing in Greek give Peter the Petra “rock” name or Petros “pebble” name? It would make zero sense to give a femine name “Petra” to a masculine person Peter. But that still does not matter because the church tells us, through 2000 yrs history, that they spoke Aramaic. Kephas is kephas is kephas.

No response to Isaiah 22. Read that and look into the “Petrine Firsts”.
Ex. Peter is mentioned more times than any other of the apostles combined. After Jesus, who was first to Preach, perform a miracle, make a binding decisions on doctrine? Peter.

Newton was great but God did not commision him.

 

[David]

Newton is the cornerstone of modern physics. But certainly Newtonian physics does not continue in its “sole primacy.”

Good point,
However Newton did not hold an office, as the Apostles did. Remember the office Judas held was filled with Mathias. Apostolic succession in action.
See Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office (bishopric in the King James) let another take.’

Peace
David

 

[Ubenedictus]

Sorry, but i think this arguement will lead nowhere. Even if u quote heaven and earth to support what u blive is right, most people will stil hold to their personal blives. Reminds me of a protestant who didnt blive d trinity and had serious dicussions with flying bible passage with many catholic including me, he simply refused to blive bcos he said God is one and there can be no ‘person’ in that one God, a yr ago he told me he blived in the trinity i asked: how? and his responds was: bcos pastor___ does and he say its in scripture.
Let me try and predict this thread: we will argue about which language christ used and then the peters office lastly it will b the early church blives. If no one wishes to learn more i dont see the importance of a debate, all i can present are my views if u dont accept them then i can only pray.
I hope we enter this discussion with a open mind bcos most times it is not d case.
Ubenedictus.

 

[kbachler]

Ah but the Aramaic does blow it out of the water. Just saying “critics say” or whatever is not proof that they all spoke Greek.

Nor is it proof they didn’t, hence its not blowing it out of the water.

Jesus wasn’t hanging around with merchants and the like but fishermen, carpenters etc. Serious blue collar dudes where needing Greek would not be necessary.

Your missing the point. The point is that there is rethinking going on that Aramaic was primary. Fishermen DID hang around merchants - they did so to sell their wares. Jesus also hung around tax collectors and people from all walks of life. The point is that the past “easy assumption” of Aramaic is less easy than what was previously assume.

The idea that this “blows this out of the water” is fairly silly.

Judea was the only, I think, Kindom/land that was left alone and wasn’t subject to Romanism due to the fact that religion and government were one there. It was definitley unique.

Greek is similar to Latin in that nouns are either feminine or masculine. Anyone that speaks a romance language would agree and know what I’m talking about. The writers of the inspired word of God whether translating the Word from a previous text or the spoken tradition of the Word, would have choice to make. Can that person when writing in Greek give Peter the Petra “rock” name or Petros “pebble” name? It would make zero sense to give a femine name “Petra” to a masculine person Peter.

Again, missing the point. It’s known that Jesus used puns, and one reason would be to preserve a pun.

But that still does not matter because the church tells us, through 2000 yrs history, that they spoke Aramaic. Kephas is kephas is kephas.

No response to Isaiah 22. Read that and look into the “Petrine Firsts”.
Ex. Peter is mentioned more times than any other of the apostles combined. After Jesus, who was first to Preach, perform a miracle, make a binding decisions on doctrine? Peter.

Newton was great but God did not commision him.

Your final statement simply assumes the truth of what you wish to prove. So that falls apart.

This is a great illustration of arguments of convenience. When He says “This is my blood” the argument is that it’s literal because there is nothing to convey its figurative. But when He says that Peter is the rock on which He will build His church (note - NOT Peter and his successors) the assumption is that it figuratively means all successors.

Look, I’m not saying that I disagree with doctrine. What I am saying is that we need to have open minds and continue to question in order to learn. People say they can’t see how Protestants think they way they do. The answers are easy if one keeps an open mind, because the answers aren’t always as clear as the doctrine is.

 

[kbachler]

Good point,
However Newton did not hold an office, as the Apostles did. Remember the office Judas held was filled with Mathias. Apostolic succession in action.
See Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office (bishopric in the King James) let another take.’

Peace
David

Did Jesus say “The office of Peter is the rock on which I will build my church”?

 

[David]

Did Jesus say “The office of Peter is the rock on which I will build my church”?

I don’t understand your question.

The Book of Acts show the Apostle’s held an office.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter which means rock.

Jesus told Simon, you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

Jesus gave Peter the a symbol of authority. The keys. See Isaiah 22:20 and following.

Are you arguing with me or the Catholic Church?

Peace
David

 

[kbachler]

I don’t understand your question.

The Book of Acts show the Apostle’s held an office.

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter which means rock.

Jesus told Simon, you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

Jesus gave Peter the a symbol of authority. The keys. See Isaiah 22:20 and following.

Are you arguing with me or the Catholic Church?

Peace
David

Please quote where the Book of Acts show the Apostles held an office.

Jesus added to Simon’s name in a way that clearly had multiple meanings and that was also a pun.

Jesus gave Peter the symbol of Authority. Is it clear that he could pass that Authority on?

Making an appeal to authority doesn’t answer your question. If you’re going to as Why Protestants think the way they do, then asking me if I’m arguing with my Catholic Church doesn’t help to get you an answer.

Are you out to really learn something, as the question would imply, or are you simply our to denigrate Protestants?

 

[David]

Please quote where the Book of Acts show the Apostles held an office.

This is where the vacated office of Judas is filled with Mathias. Note the bolded text.

Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16* “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. 18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong * he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20* For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and 'His office let another take.’ 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.