A question asked on the road

[RandyPNW]

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?

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?

 

[RileyG]

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?

...because Cephas (Rock) was literally his name? He wouldn't be called by a feminine name.

 

[RandyPNW]

...because Cephas (Rock) was literally his name? He wouldn't be called by a feminine name.

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.

 

[RileyG]

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.

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

 

[RandyPNW]

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

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!

Catholics argue that "petra" is a descriptive word, which explains why it is feminine and not masculine, like "petros."
Here is their argument (which may be legitimate): CLICK

 

[WilliamC]

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.

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.

 

[jas3]

Hopefully I can provide some clarity on the Greek discussion.

4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone") then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra ("cliff, boulder," Abbott-Smith).

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.

Cephas means Rock in koine Greek.

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.

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.

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 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.

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".

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone") then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra ("cliff, boulder," Abbott-Smith).

Citing a lexicon doesn't really prove anything.

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 that

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)

.
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)

The author of that entry is making an assertion without argumentation, which is fine for the format of the lexicon itself

Indeed. The point is to show valid translation options rather than to argue a more detailed point to start with.

(they can't include a justification for every entry), but when a translation is contentious this is basically the same as prooftexting.

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.

 

[RandyPNW]

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".

Thanks. Yes, I did consider that petra was not Peter's name. Peter was masculine, and petra was feminine, a non-proper noun.

Some would argue that because Peter and rock are distinguished by their gender that Jesus must have been referring to himself, and not directly to Peter. Though I sympathize with that position, I don't really think that's a sound argument. Jesus was specifically identifying Peter with the rock, and not speaking of himself.

On the other hand, Peter was just being called a builder of sorts, not THE builder, or the ONLY builder. As I said, Paul wrote that all of the apostles were contributors to building the rock foundation, with Christ being the stone that the builders rejected.

I would therefore say that Peter is being identified as a stone, but only one small part of all of the stones who comprised the total foundation of the Church, which included all of the apostles, and Jesus himself.

The most important issue is, I think, the fact that Jesus acknowledged Peter's characteristic leadership as it recognized who he is. It is the recognition of Jesus as Son of God that enables leadership to build the Church. It is by evangelism, leading people to recognize who Christ is, that builds the Church. The tradition of apostolic succession completely misses the mark.

 

[jas3]

Thanks. Yes, I did consider that petra was not Peter's name.

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.

 

[RandyPNW]

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.

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 don't actually believe this because Jesus said Peter was a rock who would build the foundation for the Church. He was not saying he was the *only* rock, but he clearly identified Peter as an example of a rock that would be used to start the Church.

Peter's recognition of Jesus as Messiah would be the basis for Peter's work, together with all the apostles, in building the foundation of the Church. The Church would be built when individuals come to the understanding that Jesus is their Lord and Messiah. And the apostles would preach this message.

So not being very knowledgeable of Greek, but more so of Spanish, I asked if there was significance between Peter being masculine and petra being feminine. In Spanish the comparison of the gender of a person is reflected in its descriptive words. (I'm not great at Spanish either, but I recently tried learning some Spanish.)

Anyway, you seemed to answer that question to my satisfaction. It isn't quite like Spanish, but there is a relationship between the gender of a person and an adjective associated with that person. The adjective assumes the gender of the person it modifies.

Keep in mind, I'm *asking* this of you--not telling you anything. I'm untaught on these matters, and am looking for an answer that has substance behind it.

 

[Always in His Presence]

For the first 300 years of Christianity:

Peter was NEVER referred to as a pope.
Peter was not given any exalted place that the other 12 and Paul was given
Peter wrote two books of the New Testament - Paul wrote 2/3rd of the New Testament.

If the church was built on a specific person - why was the church built on three continents by someone else (Paul)?
If the church was built on a specific person - why wasn't the title or office ever mentioned in 300 years?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Peter wrote two books of the New Testament - Paul wrote 2/3rd of the New Testament.

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.

 

[jas3]

For the first 300 years of Christianity:

...
Peter was not given any exalted place that the other 12 and Paul was given

Manifestly false.
"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

Several other examples from the first 3 centuries can be found here: Peter’s Primacy — Church Fathers

If the church was built on a specific person - why wasn't the title or office ever mentioned in 300 years?

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 you are suspicious of Catholic sources, I would recommend first of all reading the writings of those church fathers quoted on churchfathers.org, and secondly reading "The Primacy of Peter" edited by John Meyendorff for an Orthodox perspective on the subject.

 

[WilliamC]

You seriously exaggerate here.

How does hislegacy exaggerate? You don't believe Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament and Paul 2/3rds?

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 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.
If it is as you say, we should be able to see from the first century NT Scriptures, Peter operating as such with transparency.
However, it appears to be hard to see from that perspective, perhaps you can help us out? Show us after Pentecost where he is called these things, (Pope, leader) and operates as such? Thanks.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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.

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.

Tradition has taken the Words of Christ and misplaced their meaning and made themselves a king. Who was NEVER referred to as the pope nor the supreme leader of the church. That is not historically accurate no matter what an organization desires. History speaks for itself.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Manifestly false.

Manifestly accurate:

"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

Where is he called Pope? or the head of the universal Catholic Church - which is completely different from the current Roman Catholic Church.

Remember we are speaking of Peter - who denied Christ three times and was forgiven - who Christ called Satan because of what he said. He was fallible and human and made mistakes. He was referred to as the Overseer (Bishop of Rome) not any other position. EVER.

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.

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.

 

[jas3]

Where is he called Pope? or the head of the universal Catholic Church - which is completely different from the current Roman Catholic Church.

Clearly I was responding to the part of your post that I quoted, not your point about the title "pope," which is irrelevant.

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.

Maybe if you actually bothered to read any of the sources I gave you, you'd understand.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is manifestly inaccurate - for almost 300 years Peter was not referred to as Pope

Is your only "substantial" objection to the word "pope"?

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. 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. 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.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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.

I quoted your sources - so the 'bothered to take the time" comment is moot.

Clearly I was addressing a part of the issue you did not. - that is the difference.

Is your only "substantial" objection to the word "pope"?

No - but that is part of it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In other words - if you read scripture and the first 200 plus years of writings there is no mention of Peter being the head of the universal church (Catholic), Peter was indeed called the Bishop of Rome and was part and parcel of a group of Bishops in Europe, Southern Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

The only thing the Roman Catholic church has as 'proof' is what people hundreds of years later say about their interpretation of the status of Peter. History shows that Peter had very limited interaction, let alone authority over the first Century church. Peter's ministry is dwarfed by Paul's reach and authority over churches on three continents.

The Letter to the Church at Rome (Romans) was not written by Peter - but Paul
The Letters to the Church at Corinth - which set doctrine and function to the church was not written by Peter - but Paul
The letter to the church at Philippi - was written by Paul - not Peter
The letter to the Church at Ephesus - was written by Paul - not Peter
The letter to the Church at Colossi - was written by Paul - not Peter
The letter to the church at Galatia - was written by Paul - not Peter
The letter to the church at Thessaloniki - - was written by Paul - not Peter

Timothy was the spiritual son to Paul - not Peter

Peter wrote two letters

The first:

1Peter 1:1 To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia

His continuation in 2 Peter mentions no church.

If Peter was indeed the head of the church - the head of the church wrote two letters vs Paul writing 9 letters - well known as the Pastoral Epistles.

There was only one of the two who had wide influence and actively planted churches on three continents, writing Pastoral Epistles (instructions and guidance for the church) and it was not Peter.


Does that diminish the ministry of Peter - NO not in any way shape or form. But it also does not elevate him to a place he never operated in.