Peter Is Not The Rock!

[narnia59]

Peter = pebble... good one.

That seems to be the general non-Catholic view of what that verse is conveying by using the word 'petros' for Peter.

 

[beamishboy]

Peter = pebble... good one.

What is the size of a pebble in America? I read somewhere that a pebble can mean quite a large rock in America and so one can literally sit on a pebble quite comfortably. Is that true? In real English (I mean the language of England of course; hehe), a pebble is a stone that can be gathered by a child on the palm of the hand. Just curious because I've been to America and boy, do they speak differently!

 

[narnia59]

I am still learning the greek and I generally do my translations in the same order as shown in the greek. Sometimes it doesn't make sense but the authors generally wrote that way for a reason.

For example, the predicate here in Matt 21:21 is used after the Mountain instead of before it. Why, I know not.

Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them, "Verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith, and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to the Mountain, this/toutw <5129>, ye may saying, 'Be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea', it shall be becoming"; [Revelation 8:8]

Textus Rec.) Matthew 21:21 apokriqeiV de o ihsouV eipen autoiV amhn legw umin ean echte pistin kai mh diakriqhte ou monon to thV sukhV poihsete alla kan tw orei toutw eiphte arqhti kai blhqhti eiV thn qalassan genhsetai

That doesn't really answer my question, which shouldn't be that difficult. Since there are many with the opinion that because of the usage of petros and petra, the Greek translation indicates Jesus was not speaking about Peter being the rock, people should be able to provide what it would have said if that's what was meant. Otherwise it would sort of make the argument that it couldn't mean Peter was the rock a little questionable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What is the size of a pebble in America? I read somewhere that a pebble can mean quite a large rock in America and so one can literally sit on a pebble quite comfortably. Is that true? In real English (I mean the language of England of course; hehe), a pebble is a stone that can be gathered by a child on the palm of the hand. Just curious because I've been to America and boy, do they speak differently!

I doubt these are little pebbles in Reve 6

Reve 6:16 And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks/petraiV <4073>: 'Be falling on us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb-kin" [Hosea 10:8/Luke 23:30]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That doesn't really answer my question, which shouldn't be that difficult. Since there are many with the opinion that because of the usage of petros and petra, the Greek translation indicates Jesus was not speaking about Peter being the rock, people should be able to provide what it would have said if that's what was meant. Otherwise it would sort of make the argument that it couldn't mean Peter was the rock a little questionable.

I will have to let others do that.
I am busy harmonizing the Olivet discourse to Revelation.

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning/apostellw <649> toward ye Prophets and Wise-men and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing/apo-kteneite <615> (5692) and ye shall be crucifying and out of them ye shall be scourging in the synagogues of ye and ye shall be persecuting/persuing from city into city"

Reve 11:7 `And whenever they should be finishing/teleswsin <5055> (5661) the testimony of them, the wild-beast, the one ascending out of the Abyss, shall be doing with them, battle, and shall be conquering them, and it shall be Killing/apo-ktenei <615> (5692) Them

 

[narnia59]

I will have to let others do that.
I am busy harmonizing the Olivet discourse to Revelation.

Matt 23:34 "Because of this behold! I am Commissioning/apostellw <649> toward ye Prophets and Wise-men and Scribes, out of them ye shall be killing/apo-kteneite <615> (5692) and ye shall be crucifying and out of them ye shall be scourging in the synagogues of ye and ye shall be persecuting/persuing from city into city"

Reve 11:7 `And whenever they should be finishing/teleswsin <5055> (5661) the testimony of them, the wild-beast, the one ascending out of the Abyss, shall be doing with them, battle, and shall be conquering them, and it shall be Killing/apo-ktenei <615> (5692) Them

If you're too busy do respond to my request, why are you posting at all?

 

[Trento]

So, from the Orthodox point of view, this letter does not get to first base as evidence that the bishops of Rome held power over other Churches. At best it is evidence that the Church of Rome thought it had the right to admonish another Church. We do not, of course, have any response to it or know whether that claim was accepted. But there is, at the least, no evidence it is from a bishop of Rome. Clement himself sets out no theological claim to personal authority, just as he does not claim to be writing as the bishop of Rome. If we look at chapters 42 and 44, we see claims that have nothing to do with any exclusive rights of the bishop of Rome. He tells us that Christ appointed the Apostles, who appointed the leaders of the Churches, who then picked their successors. His argument to the Corinthians is that since the deposed presbyters were appointed by leaders appointed by the Apostles, to oppose them is to oppose those selected by those who had been chosen by Christ. There is no suggestion of any exclusive authority for the bishop of Rome.


Anglian

Hello Anglian,
By asserting that First Clement to the Corinthians depict Rome "asserting Papal primacy" one must have appreciation of early Church history and his insensitivity toward first century Christian sensibilities. In other words, the earliest Papacy, given that it was a Christian authority, did not express itself in the secular / "imperial" style of the late Roman or medieval Papacy, but in the humble, charitable, and Christian style reflected in 1 Peter 5:1-4 and the like.
The reason for this should be self-evident: the Papacy had not yet encountered a rival in Constantine the Great or the other nominally-Christian Roman Emperors who, as "Pontifex Maximus" under imperial law, were the legal (though not the Traditional) heads of the Church, given that the Church had become the imperial "state cult." It is only after 400 years of struggling against heretical Emperors that a more secular, commanding, and "dictatorial" (as many Protestants would see it) expression of Papal authority comes to the fore and as a "necessary evil" given the political and cultural demands on the Papacy at the time.
If one reads First Clement expecting to see the Bishop of Rome speaking in the same style as a Pope Leo the Great or a Pope Innocent III, one is going to be pleasantly disappointed. Rather, as I said, Pope Clement I speaks as the "Servus Sevorum Dei" ("The Servant of the Servants of God") a traditional Papal title which underscores Christ's own teaching that "He who would be first among you must become the servant of all."
One who speaks and acts in such a way is no less an authority than one who legitimately beats his chest and demands submission. One can fail to see a Pope in the manner and language of St. Clement of Rome though his authority is obvious.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If you're too busy do respond to my request, why are you posting at all?

Because I was curious how others view that predicate before "rock".
I do a lot of word studies just on those little rascals

For example, John mainly uses this particular word after the word "after" in Revelation. KEWL!

Matthew 24:3 He is yet sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples toward-came to Him according to own, saying, `Tell us, when shall these/tauta <5023> be? and what the Sign of the Thy ParousiaV <3952>, and of the together-finish/sun-teleiaV <4930> of the Age?' [Daniel 12/Revelation 19]

Reve 1:19 Write! [*then] which thou saw, and which are, and which is being about to be becoming/ginesqai <1096> (5738) after these/tauta <5023>.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7131625&page=3
2 Timothy 4:1 translation

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Peter = pebble... good one.

Except that the word "kephas" means rock

 

[narnia59]

Hello Anglian,
By asserting that First Clement to the Corinthians depict Rome "asserting Papal primacy" one must have appreciation of early Church history and his insensitivity toward first century Christian sensibilities. In other words, the earliest Papacy, given that it was a Christian authority, did not express itself in the secular / "imperial" style of the late Roman or medieval Papacy, but in the humble, charitable, and Christian style reflected in 1 Peter 5:1-4 and the like.
The reason for this should be self-evident: the Papacy had not yet encountered a rival in Constantine the Great or the other nominally-Christian Roman Emperors who, as "Pontifex Maximus" under imperial law, were the legal (though not the Traditional) heads of the Church, given that the Church had become the imperial "state cult." It is only after 400 years of struggling against heretical Emperors that a more secular, commanding, and "dictatorial" (as many Protestants would see it) expression of Papal authority comes to the fore and as a "necessary evil" given the political and cultural demands on the Papacy at the time.
If one reads First Clement expecting to see the Bishop of Rome speaking in the same style as a Pope Leo the Great or a Pope Innocent III, one is going to be pleasantly disappointed. Rather, as I said, Pope Clement I speaks as the "Servus Sevorum Dei" ("The Servant of the Servants of God") a traditional Papal title which underscores Christ's own teaching that "He who would be first among you must become the servant of all."
One who speaks and acts in such a way is no less an authority than one who legitimately beats his chest and demands submission. One can fail to see a Pope in the manner and language of St. Clement of Rome though his authority is obvious.

I believe what you are saying is reflected in this part of Anglian's post?

None of this is to deny that Rome's understanding of the Petrine verses developed as it did; it is to say that that understanding was far from universal in the early Church. In fact, there are Catholic historians, such as Professor Duffy of Cambridge, who understand this and still have no problem because they describe how the understanding developed, and why it did so.

In a West under threat of heresy from one side, and from pagan barbarians on most sides, it is hardly surprising that the fifth century saw Leo the Great interpret Matthew 16-18 as he did. Had there not been a unifying focus during the next few hundred years, Western Christendom might have been lost - and there would have been no Christianity to have been exported to the Americas.

My only question would be are we beyond needing a unifying focus now?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

For me, the most convincing arguments for the Pope are the passages in the Bible ("You are Peter..") and also - not so much the primacy of Rome, but how some of the ECFs said that unity is found by being in communion with St. Peter. For me this is more important.. not that Rome is "first" in some way, but that the Pope gives the Church unity in doctrine so that everyone has the same faith.

"Where Peter is, there is the Church.." (St. Ambrose, 387 AD)
"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?" (St. Cyprian, 251 AD)

We do not believe that salvation comes from the Pope (or St. Peter), but Christ did say that "You are Peter (the rock) and upon this rock I will build My Church"... to be honest this is enough for me

I find this thread really confusing and even uncharitable - from all sides. Please forgive me if I've hurt someone or have been uncharitable myself. It's important to remember that we are talking to real human beings, and that truth without love loses all meaning.

Having said all this, I am leaving this thread.

God bless..

 

[bbbbbbb]

What is the size of a pebble in America? I read somewhere that a pebble can mean quite a large rock in America and so one can literally sit on a pebble quite comfortably. Is that true? In real English (I mean the language of England of course; hehe), a pebble is a stone that can be gathered by a child on the palm of the hand. Just curious because I've been to America and boy, do they speak differently!

What a pleasant surprise to see you again BeamishBoy! Here in the good old U.S.A. a pebble is the same thing as in England. I assume that y'all there have as many words for stones and rocks as we'all do here. As Little Lamb of Jesus pointed out, the Greek word means a rock or a stone, which could be quite sizable. It is a goodly sized stone, but is not the bedrock itself and is, in fact, a stone, not the stone.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

My only question would be are we beyond needing a unifying focus now?

I think we need a unifying force now more than ever with all the divisions..

 

[beamishboy]

I believe what you are saying is reflected in this part of Anglian's post?



My only question would be are we beyond needing a unifying focus now?

My dear Narnia,

I think you missed Anglian's point. His argument is simply that the threat from heresy and barbarians led Rome to arrogate to itself an authority it was not given by the Apostles and the early church. Even if we need a unifying force now, that does not change the fact that Rome was NEVER given that authority by the early church. Some may think that to avoid the dangers of heresy, etc, the beamishboy should be allowed to turn all Christians into slaves under him and let the beamishboy rule with an iron hand. But that does not mean I got this authority from God or the apostles or the early church. I hope you get the difference.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I believe what you are saying is reflected in this part of Anglian's post?

None of this is to deny that Rome's understanding of the Petrine verses developed as it did; it is to say that that understanding was far from universal in the early Church. In fact, there are Catholic historians, such as Professor Duffy of Cambridge, who understand this and still have no problem because they describe how the understanding developed, and why it did so.

In a West under threat of heresy from one side, and from pagan barbarians on most sides, it is hardly surprising that the fifth century saw Leo the Great interpret Matthew 16-18 as he did. Had there not been a unifying focus during the next few hundred years, Western Christendom might have been lost - and there would have been no Christianity to have been exported to the Americas.

My only question would be are we beyond needing a unifying focus now?

I suppose that depends on ones interpretation of Daniel 2. The stone here is also feminine.

Daniel 2:35 In-then they are pulverized as one, the the iron, the clay, the copper, the silver, and the gold. And they became as chaff threshing of summer and the wind lifted up them and any of place not was found for them and the stone that she collided to the image she became to a mountain, vast, and all of the land is filled.

Daniel 2:45 Forasmuch as all of thou saw that from the mountain she severed herself, stone that not in hands, and she pulverized the iron, the copper, the clay, the silver and the gold. Eloah grand makes known to the king what that shall be after this, and certain the dream and faithful interpretation of her.

069 'eben (Aramaic) {eh'-ben} corresponding to 068; TWOT - 2556; n f [Ezra 5:8 6:4]
AV - stone(s) 8; 8
1) stone 1a) a (the) stone 1b) stone, material of idols and buildings

 

[beamishboy]

What a pleasant surprise to see you again BeamishBoy! Here in the good old U.S.A. a pebble is the same thing as in England. I assume that y'all there have as many words for stones and rocks as we'all do here. As Little Lamb of Jesus pointed out, the Greek word means a rock or a stone, which could be quite sizable. It is a goodly sized stone, but is not the bedrock itself and is, in fact, a stone, not the stone.

Howdy bbbbbbb,

What a pleasant surprise indeed to see you here!!! Glad to know that the US did not see it fit to depart from Mother England on the definition of "pebble". This is a relief after I learnt not too long ago that you guys wilfully used different words for various parts of the car. To think that you called it a windshield, a ______ (I forgot what you call the boot and bonnet; hehe).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Howdy bbbbbbb,

What a pleasant surprise indeed to see you here!!! Glad to know that the US did not see it fit to depart from Mother England on the definition of "pebble". This is a relief after I learnt not too long ago that you guys wilfully used different words for various parts of the car. To think that you called it a windshield, a ______ (I forgot what you call the boot and bonnet; hehe).

I will always remember your thread on the Vatican nuns coming to your door awhile back.
Btw, mind helping me out on this thread? I need your holy spirit views on it

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7285372

2 Beasts of Revelation study

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I also wanted to say that Biblically, it really makes no sense for Jesus to rename Peter if He didn't mean for Peter to be "the rock" upon which He'll build the Church. Because in ALL other times in the Bible when people got renamed by God, it was always for a very important reason and went along with their role in His Kingdom. (esp. in the Old Testament!)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I also wanted to say that Biblically, it really makes no sense for Jesus to rename Peter if He didn't mean for Peter to be "the rock" upon which He'll build the Church. Because in ALL other times in the Bible when people got renamed by God, it was always for a very important reason and went along with their role in His Kingdom. (esp. in the Old Testament!)

The 2 different names of "saul/paul" is also interesting.
Seems like mayby the saul of the NT was a type of saul of the OT, who persecuted poor ole David all the time.

2 Samuel 22:1 And David is speaking to YHWH words of the song, this, in day of YHWH rescuing him from palm of all his enemies and from palm of Sha'uwl

Acts 13:9 Saul/sauloV <4569> yet the even Paul/pauloV <3972> being filled of spirit, holy-one, staring into him,

 

[beamishboy]

I will always remember your thread on the Vatican nuns coming to your door awhile back.
Btw, mind helping me out on this thread? I need your holy spirit views on it

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7285372

2 Beasts of Revelation study

Hi LLOJ,

I'm sorry but your threads are always very wordy and full of quotations. It's very hard for me to make an intelligent response to such posts. The truth is I can't even read through every word in a single post. You should get the more learned and older chaps in our midst. Sorry.