Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was responding to your claim that Peter would not be called "Petra" because that is, you say, feminine. I don't really know Greek. I'm just wondering why, if Petra can't be applied to Peter, who is a male, it should applied to Christ, who is also a male?No. He didn't? What are you saying?
You are Cephas (Rock) and upon this Rock, I will build my Church.
Unless I'm not following your thought?
...because Cephas (Rock) was literally his name? He wouldn't be called by a feminine name.I was responding to your claim that Peter would not be called "Petra" because that is, you say, feminine. I don't really know Greek. I'm just wondering why, if Petra can't be applied to Peter, who is a male, it should applied to Christ, who is also a male?
Right. I suppose we should say that Peter is being likened to "petra," a feminine form of the word, indicating that his name and the rock he represents are distinct realities? The Rock is Christ, a "petra," which Peter only serves to be part of....because Cephas (Rock) was literally his name? He wouldn't be called by a feminine name.
Right. The Rock is Christ. I agree, the Bible says that many times.Right. I suppose we should say that Peter is being likened to "petra," a feminine form of the word, indicating that his name and the rock he represents are distinct realities? The Rock is Christ, a "petra," which Peter only serves to be part of.
Again, I don't know Greek. I'm just trying to understand the language. Being likened to a feminine word renders Peter and what he represents distinct?
In Spanish it is different than this. If a female is compared to a word that describes her the descriptive word takes on a feminine form, as I understand it. If a male is compared to a descriptive word that describes him the word assumes a masculine form. -a, or -o.
Well, Peter is certainly being associated with a female version of the word. And that female version of the word is identified with Christ, who is a male. I'm not sure what else to say either!Right. The Rock is Christ. I agree, the Bible says that many times.
I wouldn't say he is being likened to a Petra because he isn't female.
I don't know Greek either so I'm not sure what else to say. lol
Sorry, but it has been highly disputed for a long time. The Scriptures do nothing to back this,so one must rely on fallible man made tradition to make it seem plausible. I don't put much weight behind the ECFs.Actually, Peter was first Bishop in Antioch then Bishop of Rome. After his death, Linus succeeded him so forth and so on until we have Pope Francis. That is not disputed.
Citing a lexicon doesn't really prove anything. The author of that entry is making an assertion without argumentation, which is fine for the format of the lexicon itself (they can't include a justification for every entry), but when a translation is contentious this is basically the same as prooftexting.
Not quite, it's the Greek pronunciation/transliteration of the Aramaic kepha, meaning "rock" in Aramaic. The normal word for rock in Greek is petra.Cephas means Rock in koine Greek.
Here, rock is a noun, not a name (or proper noun). So using the normal form petra doesn't apply any feminine description to Christ.Why would Paul call Christ a feminine name?
1 Cor 10.3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
In Greek this only applies to adjectives. If you wanted to say "Sophia is a stone" in Greek, you would write "Σοφία ἐστί λίθος", not "Σοφία ἐστί λίθα" (λιθά is not a real word). If you wanted to say "Sophia is stony," you would write "Σοφία ἐστί λίθινη", not "Σοφία ἐστί λίθινος".In Spanish it is different than this. If a female is compared to a word that describes her the descriptive word takes on a feminine form, as I understand it. If a male is compared to a descriptive word that describes him the word assumes a masculine form. -a, or -o.
On the contrary - it shows valid translation options for the word being translated into English. And in the case of the post you are quoting we see several instances where that word is used and is translated in my prior post to thatCiting a lexicon doesn't really prove anything.
.Amen -
1 Cor 3:11 For no other foundation (Petra - Rock) can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matt 16 "you are Petrose" (pebble) and "on this Petra - Foundation stone" - Christ, I will build My church
In the same chapter where Jesus says to Peter "get thee behind me Satan".
Matt 7:24 Jesus said that to "build on the foundation" (Petra) is to follow the words of Jesus.
"Everyone who hears these words of MINE and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the PETRA (Rock - Foundation stone)
Indeed. The point is to show valid translation options rather than to argue a more detailed point to start with.The author of that entry is making an assertion without argumentation, which is fine for the format of the lexicon itself
Not quite since a Lexicon will show options but does not tell you which option the context is dictating. The details you are omitting are the point - giving examples where we see the word used in context.(they can't include a justification for every entry), but when a translation is contentious this is basically the same as prooftexting.
Thanks. Yes, I did consider that petra was not Peter's name.Hopefully I can provide some clarity on the Greek discussion.
Citing a lexicon doesn't really prove anything. The author of that entry is making an assertion without argumentation, which is fine for the format of the lexicon itself (they can't include a justification for every entry), but when a translation is contentious this is basically the same as prooftexting.
Not quite, it's the Greek pronunciation/transliteration of the Aramaic kepha, meaning "rock" in Aramaic. The normal word for rock in Greek is petra.
Here, rock is a noun, not a name (or proper noun). So using the normal form petra doesn't apply any feminine description to Christ.
In Greek this only applies to adjectives. If you wanted to say "Sophia is a stone" in Greek, you would write "Σοφία ἐστί λίθος", not "Σοφία ἐστί λίθα" (λιθά is not a real word). If you wanted to say "Sophia is stony," you would write "Σοφία ἐστί λίθινη", not "Σοφία ἐστί λίθινος".
I'm a little confused - nothing in that comment was about petra being Peter's name. There was one point where you asked about Christ being called "that rock" and one where you mentioned that Spanish nouns can take masculine or feminine endings.Thanks. Yes, I did consider that petra was not Peter's name.
I'll try again from the start. But I'll begin with the background issue, which was not initially explained. Some people think that because Peter is masculine and petra is feminine that Jesus was identifying himself as the rock, and not Peter. Catholics want Peter to be the rock, and Protestants may prefer Jesus to be the rock.I'm a little confused - nothing in that comment was about petra being Peter's name. There was one point where you asked about Christ being called "that rock" and one where you mentioned that Spanish nouns can take masculine or feminine endings.
Edit: my Spanish is very limited, but from a quick search it looks like the masculine/feminine ending switching only applies to adjectives in Spanish too, and that's what you said, except that you were still asking why the rule for an adjective didn't apply. I misunderstood because in the verse you were asking about, "rock" is a noun, not an adjective.
You seriously exaggerate here. But saint Peter is not Pope because he wrote letters. He is pope, that is to say, leader of the Church, because he was made such by Jesus Christ in the passage that is quoted in the Original Post of this thread.Peter wrote two books of the New Testament - Paul wrote 2/3rd of the New Testament.
Manifestly false.For the first 300 years of Christianity:
...
Peter was not given any exalted place that the other 12 and Paul was given
Read Cyprian of Carthage's treatise on the unity of the Church (link), which is within the first 300 years and takes the position that while all of the apostles had equal power and authority, Peter was the center of unity.If the church was built on a specific person - why wasn't the title or office ever mentioned in 300 years?
How does hislegacy exaggerate? You don't believe Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament and Paul 2/3rds?You seriously exaggerate here.
Peter is never referred to as Pope or leader in the Scriptures. Christ certainly never called him such. All you really have at best is a twisted interpretation, or extra biblical sources to prop up that belief.But saint Peter is not Pope because he wrote letters. He is pope, that is to say, leader of the Church, because he was made such by Jesus Christ in the passage that is quoted in the Original Post of this thread.
That is manifestly inaccurate - for almost 300 years Peter was not referred to as Pope and instead he was referred to as the Bishop of Rome (Bishop - overseer) - at the same time in history a number of others were entitled Bishop of their area's.You seriously exaggerate here. But saint Peter is not Pope because he wrote letters. He is pope, that is to say, leader of the Church, because he was made such by Jesus Christ in the passage that is quoted in the Original Post of this thread.
Manifestly accurate:Manifestly false.
Where is he called Pope? or the head of the universal Catholic Church - which is completely different from the current Roman Catholic Church."Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying."
- Clement of Alexandria, AD 200
What was that? Equal power and authority? You answered your own post and proved my point - Peter had no more authority than any of the other Apostles - He couldn't be the head of the church if he did not hold greater authority.Several other examples from the first 3 centuries can be found here: Peter’s Primacy — Church Fathers
Read Cyprian of Carthage's treatise on the unity of the Church (link), which is within the first 300 years and takes the position that while all of the apostles had equal power and authority, Peter was the center of unity.
Clearly I was responding to the part of your post that I quoted, not your point about the title "pope," which is irrelevant.Where is he called Pope? or the head of the universal Catholic Church - which is completely different from the current Roman Catholic Church.
Maybe if you actually bothered to read any of the sources I gave you, you'd understand.What was that? Equal power and authority? You answered your own post and proved my point - Peter had no more authority than any of the other Apostles - He couldn't be the head of the church if he did not hold greater authority.
Is your only "substantial" objection to the word "pope"?That is manifestly inaccurate - for almost 300 years Peter was not referred to as Pope
I quoted your sources - so the 'bothered to take the time" comment is moot.Clearly I was responding to the part of your post that I quoted, not your point about the title "pope," which is irrelevant.
Maybe if you actually bothered to read any of the sources I gave you, you'd understand.
No - but that is part of it.Is your only "substantial" objection to the word "pope"?
Jesus is the ONLY Spiritual father of the church. Peter and the other Apostles laid the foundation, but they were EQUAL in authority, there was not one man placed by God over the globe.Pope is just a title, it means "father" and is a reference to the Bishop of Rome being the spiritual father of the Church insofar as he is its earthly guide and pastor.
Which as previously discussed and supported - Jesus never did. The tradition takes one verse to build a whole 'doctrine' not supported by Scripture, nor the early church.But this thread is not about the title "pope", it is in fact about the bestowal of leadership of the whole Church upon saint Pater by the Lord, Jesus Christ, while Christ was personally present upon the earth.
Thank you - yes, I am fully aware the positional paper that the Roman Catholic Church stands on. Again, it is NOT supported by Scripture nor the first close to 300 years of church historical writings.This role is passed on to each of saint Peter's successors in the holy see of Rome. Each and every one of the popes is "Peter", the Rock upon which the Church is built. But in being Peter, the man who fills the office of Bishop of Rome - technically, the bishop of Rome can be resident in any physical place and still be the successor of saint Peter - does not become sinless ,nor necessarily exemplary in conduct and moral life, some popes have been notorious sinners, though the number is relatively few. A few popes have had personal beliefs and moral conduct that would make many a worldly person blush. Yet the promise in the words, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", remains true and unbroken. The Church has not fallen, and no Pope has led her into error and sin. Yet again, this is not to say that men within the church, even bishops, have remained true to the gospel and refrained from overt sin and scandal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?