Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

Claiming that Matthew has no historical backing? Aramaic Primacy for Matthew was the prevailing thought until Erasmus cast a shadow of doubt on it in the 16th century (it took 1600 years to come up with something plausible enough to stick, and darn, right in the middle of the Enlightenment when the legitimacy of EVERYTHING was being questioned). THere are a contingent of credible biblical scholars who believe that the Peshitta to be the closest to the original autograph.

That is because the Roman Church controlled the Bible up until then.

http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html

6. The Peshitta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?
7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas").

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'? There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.
PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:
Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac
9 times by the word SHU`A' ,
6 times by the word KE'PHA' and
1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'
Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
7 times by the word SHU`A'
(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
3 times by the word KE'PHA'
(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

 

[mont974x4]

Claiming that Matthew has no historical backing? Aramaic Primacy for Matthew was the prevailing thought until Erasmus cast a shadow of doubt on it in the 16th century (it took 1600 years to come up with something plausible enough to stick, and darn, right in the middle of the Enlightenment when the legitimacy of EVERYTHING was being questioned). THere are a contingent of credible biblical scholars who believe that the Peshitta to be the closest to the original autograph.

Nice twisting of my post. Not once did I question the history of Matthew.

No wonder your confused, you can't even get a post on CF interpreted correctly.

 

[mont974x4]

LOL Evryone looked to Peter and then Paul corrected him.

No where are we told to imitate Peter. we are told to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ.


Why didn't they pick Paul for the first pope? Did the lots just not fall that way?

 

[ScottBot]

Nice twisting of my post. Not once did I question the history of Matthew.

No wonder your confused, you can't even get a post on CF interpreted correctly.

I was speaking regarding the history of the Aramaic Primacy of Matthew. My post is relatively clear on that matter. Keep the ad hominems to yourself, chief.

 

[ScottBot]

LOL Evryone looked to Peter and then Paul corrected him.

No where are we told to imitate Peter. we are told to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ.


Why didn't they pick Paul for the first pope? Did the lots just not fall that way?

Because "they" didn't do it, Christ did. Take it up with Him.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So I ask again. Are we to discard the Greek MSS used in the early centuries in order to change one word in the Bible?

http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'? There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.
PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:
Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac
9 times by the word SHU`A' ,
6 times by the word KE'PHA' and
1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'
Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
7 times by the word SHU`A'
(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
3 times by the word KE'PHA'
(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

Byz./Maj.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

W-H ) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

Textus Rec.) Matthew 16:18 kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV

 

[mont974x4]

Be honest. You accused me of saying Matthew had no historical backing and I called you on it.


Christ did not choose Peter, that's why we have so many threads about this, and when backed into a corner you RC's claim tradition or the aramaic defense instead of an honest discussion of Scripture. And then if that doesn't work you twist our posts as badly as you twist Scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

LOL Evryone looked to Peter and then Paul corrected him.

No where are we told to imitate Peter. we are told to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ.


Why didn't they pick Paul for the first pope? Did the lots just not fall that way?

Honestly

They ALL dissembled following PETER'S dissimulation and were NOT walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. As if thats not a wake up call

Paul wasnt a man follower, He kept his eyes on the Lord. Hes a good example, I think I will too

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[ScottBot]

YOu can't use Petra on a man. petra is feminine, Simon was a man, so you would have to masculinize the noun to fit the subject. Regardless, they are still talking about a rock.

I find it sort of conficting that Jesus would tell Peter that he would strengthen his brothers after Christ's crucifixion, tell him to feed His sheep 3 times, watch Simon walk on water, empower Simon to raise the dead, tell Simon that the Gospel is open to the Gentiles, and empower him to speak and convert thousands after the pentacost, and call him a little pebble.

 

[ScottBot]

No, I corrected you and told you that the Aramaic Primacy of Matthew had plenty of historical backing. You misinterpreted my post. I was quite clear that I was referring to the history of the Aramaic Primacy of the Gospel of Matthew, not the history of the Gospel of Matthew entirely. I am a goob sometimes, but I'm not brain dead.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Honestly

They ALL dissembled following PETER'S dissimulation and were NOT walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. As if thats not a wake up call

Paul wasnt a man follower, He kept his eyes on the Lord. Hes a good example, I think I will too

Peace

Fireinfolding

Many left Jesus because of His "Hard teachings" just as they left Paul here.

This one "anti-Paul" site took advantage of it.

2 Timothy 1:15 thou hast known this, that they did turn from/apestrafhsan <654> me--all those in the Asia, of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes;


http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

If these five reasons are not enough to seriously call into question Paul's status as an apostle there is one more. It is a most interesting quote from Paul's own pen that finally seals the fate of his supposed apostleship. It comes from his second letter to Timothy, which was also written during the same Neronian persecution in which John was given the Revelation. This letter is believed by many scholars to contain the last recorded words of Paul. Here he makes a short statement of lament that seems to have gone unnoticed. The implications of which are astounding if one is able to hear everything that is being said. Paul says to Timothy:

"This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2Timothy 1:15

Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "This you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia! The very place that Yahshua told John to write, where his seven churches were! And they were alive, and obviously had been established for some time. Again, notice that Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Yahshua. Obviously they hadn't rejected Yahshua if there were thriving churches there that Yahshua wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally!

 

[mont974x4]

"Claiming that Matthew has no historical backing?"

That is how your post started. Just accept it and move on.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

YOu can't use Petra on a man. petra is feminine, Simon was a man, so you would have to masculinize the noun to fit the subject. Regardless, they are still talking about a rock

Daniel 11:4 as He stands up , She shall be broken, Kingdom of Him, and She shall be divided for Four Winds of the heavens, and not to His latter likeness/04915 moshel which He ruled. That She shall be uprooted/05428 nathash, Kingdom[Jeremiah 12:14] of Him, and to/for others aside from these

 

[mont974x4]

LLoJ, now hit up "wisdom".


LOL

 

[ScottBot]

"Claiming that Matthew has no historical backing?"

That is how your post started. Just accept it and move on.

Okay, the post has been editted to demonstrate my actual intent. NOW the discussion regarding my intent is over and we can move on. That edit keys is a funny little thing. You can actually go back and clarify your remarks. Weird.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Read the Acts of the Apostles just after the Pentecost. Everyone looked to Peter for guidance.

I havent a problem with Peter as apostle or Him being as mouth by which the grace of God come. Thats not my qualm at all.

I just dont see Peter as the one the church is built on the same as others want to show it.

My thoughts (according to scripture) have been expressed on this already throughout a few Peter threads.

Seeing Peter really means nothing at all because Peter was really about speaking of Christ (not himself).


Fireinfolding

 

[mont974x4]

Wow, look I found the ignore list.

 

[mont974x4]

That sucks, I can't ignore a moderator whose being rude?

 

[Thekla]

Honestly

They ALL dissembled following PETER'S dissimulation and were NOT walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. As if thats not a wake up call

Peace

Fireinfolding

do you mean at the time of the crucifixion ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That sucks, I can't ignore a moderator whose being rude?

Isn't Apologetics fun?

Dan 11:36 And He does as acceptable of Him, the King, and He shall exalt Himself and He shall magnify Himself over every of God/0410 'El and on God/'El of gods/'El He shall speak marvelous things, and He causes to prosper until Concluding of Menace/za`am that One being decided She is Finished.