That seems to be the general non-Catholic view of what that verse is conveying by using the word 'petros' for Peter.
Upvote
0
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.
That seems to be the general non-Catholic view of what that verse is conveying by using the word 'petros' for Peter.Peter = pebble... good one.
Peter = pebble... good one.
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 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
I doubt these are little pebbles in Reve 6What 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 will have to let others do that.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.
If you're too busy do respond to my request, why are you posting at all?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
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
Because I was curious how others view that predicate before "rock".If you're too busy do respond to my request, why are you posting at all?
I believe what you are saying is reflected in this part of Anglian's post?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.
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!
My only question would be are we beyond needing a unifying focus now?
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?
I suppose that depends on ones interpretation of Daniel 2. The stone here is also feminine.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?
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).
The 2 different names of "saul/paul" is also interesting.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!)
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
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?