Peter Is Not The Rock!

[archierieus]

He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing,

Ha!! A 'peculiar and personal blessing'? There is no--repeat NO textual support for such a notion!! There is NOTHING in the text to intimate such a thing! The notion proposed here is CONTRIVED BY MAN IN SUPPORT OF MAN'S DOCTRINE OF PRIMACY AND PAPAL SUPREMACY. IT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father

NOWHERE IS SUCH A NOTION PRESENTED OR SUPPORTED IN SCRIPTURE. NOWHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY, SUGGEST OR IMPLY THAT GOD GAVE SIMON A SPECIAL REVELATION GRANTED ONLY TO HIM. Jesus revealed Himself as the Messiah to ALL THE DISCIPLES. Peter, James and John had more faith than the rest. THE REVELATION WAS MADE TO ALL.

(cf. Matt., xi, 27). He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:

Ha! Absolutely unsupported by the text, in fact contrary to the text both on the level of the Greek and on the level of the rest of the book of Matthew, as well as the gospels and the book of Acts.

"Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church." The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same (N~D); this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations.

Ha! Absolutely unknown and unknowable. THE BIBLE WAS RECORDED IN GREEK, NOT ARAMAIC. WE DO NOT KNOW IF JESUS SPOKE TO THE DISCIPLES IN MT. 16 IN ARAMAIC OR NOT. WE DO KNOW THAT THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED THE TEXT AS IT READS IN GREEK IN MT. 16. THAT TEXT DISTIINGUISHES BETWEEN THE PROPER MASCULINE NAME PETROS AND THE COMMON FEMININE NOUN WITH ARTICLE, PETRA.

Denominational pronouncements are not the inspired Word of God. They often, if not typically, are written to support the teaching of the particular denomination. IOW SPIN.

Dave

Peace[/quote]

 

[Rick Otto]

Even if we agree on that, fact is that Jesus is pronounced as an Apostle (Heb3:1)over whom Peter could not be pre-eminent, Jesus is repetedly referred to as the rock, all the apostles are foundation stones, and the Church is built of living stones. All of which undermines the idea of a hypereminence of Peter as a stone.

This court finds the preponderance of circumstantial eveidence rules in favor of the Reformed plaintiffs, Mr. Roar.

 

[archierieus]

In classical languages such as Latin and Greek, this doesn't imply a distinction between the two word's meanings.

This is NOT Latin, this is Greek. The languages are quite different. As for your statement, please cite to credible peer-reviewed authorities (NON-DENOMINATIONAL please) in support of your assertion. It really is quite contrary to the NT Greek I am familiar with.

When you consider the fact that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic,

You do not know that for a fact with respect to this occurrence, nor do you know what He actually said other than what is recorded BY INSPIRATION in this verse, in Greek. The Holy Spirit inspired the text as it reads, in Greek. And there IS a significant difference in Greek.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ha! Absolutely unknown and unknowable. THE BIBLE WAS RECORDED IN GREEK, NOT ARAMAIC. WE DO NOT KNOW IF JESUS SPOKE TO THE DISCIPLES IN MT. 16 IN ARAMAIC OR NOT.

What would be the greek word for Aramaic? These are the 3 languages written in Luke 23:38.

Luke 23:38 Was yet also an inscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Roman, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JUDEANS.

Textus Rec.) Luke 23:38 hn de kai epigrafh gegrammenh ep autw grammasin ellhnikoiV kai rwmaikoiV kai ebraikoiV outoV estin o basileuV twn ioudaiwn

 

[Anglian]

Dear archierieus,

Now this thread is back on track, I don't want to derail it again, but do want to respond to your excellent post here.

[/color][/size][/font]


Yes, I understood what you were saying. I would simply respond that, assuming its inspiration, the book itself does in fact not stand alone (although to human appearance it does), because it is part and parcel of the larger 'Book' or compilation which we recognize as 'God-breathed' (theopneustos). To God, the true Author, it was the final installment of that larger Book, hence the inspired words in ch. 22 about not adding to the words of 'this Book.' As for its order in the Bible, I believe that God is above time, that He inhabits the past, the present and the future simultaneously ("Who was, and is, and is to come, the Almighty") Therefore, God knew in advance and had His master plan for His Book, working sometimes through and sometimes around and in spite of man's activities!

This the Church also holds, but not quite in the sense that God dictated either the text or the order of the books; it is not, in that sense, what the Muslims hold about the Koran, or the LDS people about the BoM.

I should think that God also would be at work when it comes to the preservation of His Word--nay, in spite of the several Church councils!

I would agree that He speaks through the Councils - even if we don't always listen.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Annolennar]

This is NOT Latin, this is Greek. The languages are quite different. As for your statement, please cite to credible peer-reviewed authorities (NON-DENOMINATIONAL please) in support of your assertion. It really is quite contrary to the NT Greek I am familiar with.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html

This is an introduction to the New Testament Greek by the University of Texas at Austin. You can familiarize yourself with Koine Greek, and its function as an inflected language, there without fear of it being "too Catholic".

Ironically, even when you do account for denominational sources, the majority, including respected Protestant theologians, conclude that the words are synonyms, and that there is no difference in meaning.

So, since the consensus of Christian thought is that both words reference Peter, I'll leave the burden of proof otherwise with you.

You do not know that for a fact with respect to this occurrence, nor do you know what He actually said other than what is recorded BY INSPIRATION in this verse, in Greek. The Holy Spirit inspired the text as it reads, in Greek. And there IS a significant difference in Greek.

I know it with the same certainty that you or I or any Christian knows the historical source of Scripture. We also know Jesus spoke Aramaic. We know that there is one Aramaic word for "rock", which is "kepha".

We know that there is a word in Greek that could have been used by Matthew if Jesus had been making the distinction that a few Protestants often claim, rather than comparison, and that word is "lithos", which means "little rock" or "pebble", and it is not used. Instead, a synonym with virtually no difference in meaning is used. Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

 

[MamaZ]

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html

This is an introduction to the New Testament Greek by the University of Texas at Austin. You can familiarize yourself with Koine Greek, and its function as an inflected language, there without fear of it being "too Catholic".

Ironically, even when you do account for denominational sources, the majority, including respected Protestant theologians, conclude that the words are synonyms, and that there is no difference in meaning.

So, since the consensus of Christian thought is that both words reference Peter, I'll leave the burden of proof otherwise with you.



I know it with the same certainty that you or I or any Christian knows the historical source of Scripture. We also know Jesus spoke Aramaic. We know that there is one Aramaic word for "rock", which is "kepha".

We know that there is a word in Greek that could have been used by Matthew if Jesus had been making the distinction that a few Protestants often claim, rather than comparison, and that word is "lithos", which means "little rock" or "pebble", and it is not used. Instead, a synonym with virtually no difference in meaning is used. Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

 

[Anglian]

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

As my Syriac Orthodox friend commented: 'That is not a pun in Aramaic'. Since the whole point of the thing is that it is a word play in both languages, the Greek tries to do what the Aramaic would do. But don't listen to Aramaic speakers if it gets in the way of denying something that no-one in the Greek-speaking world of the early Church ever denied - which is that it is a word play on rock and rock.

It is not the semantics, which no one questioned before Protestants had to find some argument to deny the RCC claims made for the passage, but the meaning of the primacy accorded to Peter which is at issue.

Many of the ECFs took it to be personal to Peter - and therefore not something to be passed on. If it could have been passed on then it would have been claimed by Antioch where Peter founded a Church before he ever got to Rome.

peace,

Anglian

 

[bbbbbbb]

I remember the first time I read thru Revelation and just shaking my head and saying "this looks like something Ezekiel would write!"
But it follows Ezekiel just nicely thank ya very much

Ezekiel 39:17 " And thou son of adam, thus He says my Lord YHWH, say thou! to bird of every wing, and to all of beast of the field: 'be assembled ye! and come ye! together ye from round about on sacrifice of Me which I sacrificing for ye, a sacrifice great on Mountains of Israel, and ye eat flesh and ye drink blood. 18 Flesh of mighty-ones ye shall eat, and blood of princes of the Land ye shall drink

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered/sun-agesqe <4863> (5744)! into the Supper/deipnon <1173> of the Great God. 18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings......[Zeph 1:17/Ezekiel 39:19]

Yep. I had the same reaction when I read Revelation.

 

[archierieus]

Ironically, even when you do account for denominational sources, the majority, including respected Protestant theologians, conclude that the words are synonyms, and that there is no difference in meaning.

Since you refer to basic cocepts, I will share this comment from the B-Greek Digest:

"A general starting point in lexical semantics can be that a
difference in morphology signals a difference in meaning." The entry also notes the distinction between the two words, and concepts, in the Hebrew NT:

"The Modern Hebrew New Testament has KIPPA (a rock mass) for PETROS
and HATSSUR HAZZE (a rock or boulder) for PETRA.

Delitzsch' Hebrew New Testament has PETROS for PETROS and HATSSUR
HAZZE for PETRA."

And again:

"However, realizing that words signal concepts in the minds of
living people and that words with a different morphology signal
different concepts, we also realize that "synonyms" do not mean
exactly the same. But synonyms are words that signal different
concepts, but these words are in many contexts *used* similarly."

So, since the consensus of Christian thought is that both words reference Peter

That is quite simply not the case. Sorry.

Dave

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings Anglian and thanks for that clarification. So we can safely say the Pope isn't the Rock? I can hang with that

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art Peter, and upon this/tauth <3778>, the Peter I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing of her;

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

Btw, that same greek word is also used in revel 12:7 concerning the Dragon. Interesting.

Reve 12:7 And became battle in the heaven the Michael and the messengers of him do battle with the dragon and the dragon battles and the messengers of it/him 8 and not he is strong/iscus-an <2480> (5656) neither place was found of them still in the Heaven.

kai pulai adou ou kat-iscus-ousin authV

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Many of the ECFs took it to be personal to Peter - and therefore not something to be passed on. If it could have been passed on then it would have been claimed by Antioch where Peter founded a Church before he ever got to Rome.

peace,

Anglian

That made me look more at the rest of those greek words.
Here is something even more interesting. An assembly is also a house of Living Stones/Called-out ones, and coincidentally Jesus mentions that word for "strong" in Matt 12:29. Fascinating!!!!

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art petroV and upon tauth <3778>, the petra <4073> I shall be building of Me the 0ut-called, and gates of Hades not shall be prevailing/katiscusousin <2729> (5692) of her;

Matthew 12:29 `Or how is able any-one to be entering into the House of the strong-one/iscurou <2478>, and the instruments of him to snatch-away, if ever no first he should be binding the strong-one/iscuron <2478>? And then his House he shall be snatching-away. [Mark 3:27/Reve 15:8]

Reve 12:7 And became battle in the heaven the Michael and the messengers of him do battle with the dragon and the dragon battles and the messengers of it/him 8 and not he is strong/iscusan <2480> (5656) neither place was found of them still in the Heaven.

 

[squint]

Levi and Matthew are the same name. And you do not show where Jesus gave anyone else a name.

hmmm? Levi....Matthew....same name...?

Nope. Next!

Your quotes so far have not shown a time that Jesus gave another Apsotle another name. You have strecthed the imagination and still have not shown where Jesus named anyone else a new name.

The quotes prior contained 4 that were SURnamed. I'm not able to do your reading for you or increase your comprehension skills. Sorry.

Yet again we have a person that was known by one name and another as well, much like Paul. Jews commonly had two names, one being Hebrew and the other Greek. So, you have not shown where Jesus gave any one else another name such as Peter.

Even in Simon to Peter there was similarity to the prior name. Jesus did give at least 2 other disciples names, and possibly 2 more even without direct quotes as they had surnames.

Ultimately that was not my observation. My observation was that Paul strictly FORBADE the ignorance of claiming "I AM OF CEPHAS." Yet the RCC stakes their claim on that which was EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in 1 Cor. 1.

Acts 4:33
And with great power gave the apostleS witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

You should also notice that like Abraham, Simon received a different name that carried with it a very important meaning.

The entirety of scripture is filled with name significance none of which is meant for any group to take in the vain attempt to lord same over other peoples heads making them subject to authority other than Christ. None of us who are joined in His Body place ourselves over the HEAD nor do we take authority apart from The Body with prevailing over the Head by some 'other member.'

Even Apostles can be led astray.

enjoy!

squint

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I see, so if I say George Bush from Texas I have surnamed him?


But regardless... Jesus did not give any one else a different name. The closest I can even think of is John the Baptist being referred to as Elijah.

So you claim is that Jesus gave Matthew the name Levi even though scripture never said that?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I see, so if I say George Bush from Texas I have surnamed him?


But regardless... Jesus did not give any one else a different name. The closest I can even think of is John the Baptist being referred to as Elijah.

So you claim is that Jesus gave Matthew the name Levi even though scripture never said that?

Yeah, they even wanted to bring fire down from the heaven if I remember correctly

Reve 11:5 and if any them willing to injure, fire is going out of the mouth of them and is devouring the enemies of them. And if any should be willing them to injure, thusly is binding him to be killed.

1 King 18:37 "Answer thou me YHWH! Answer thou me! and the people, this shall know that Thou YHWH the Elohiym and Thou turn-around their heart backward" 38 And fire of YHWH is falling and is devouring the ascent-offering/05930 `olah, and the woods and the stones and the soil and the waters which in trench is licked up.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yeah, they even want to bring fire down from the heaven if I remember correctly

Reve 11:5 and if any them willing to injure, fire is going out of the mouth of them and is devouring the enemies of them. And if any should be willing them to injure, thusly is binding him to be killed.

1 King 18:37 "Answer thou me YHWH! Answer thou me! and the people, this shall know that Thou YHWH the Elohiym and Thou turn-around their heart backward" 38 And fire of YHWH is falling and is devouring the ascent-offering/05930 `olah, and the woods and the stones and the soil and the waters which in trench is licked up.

You know that John fulfilled the prophecy concerning Elijah?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You know that John fulfilled the prophecy concerning Elijah?

And JESUS filled the Prophecy of Moses.
Some say these 2 witesses are a type of "moses" and elijah" which appears to be pretty close.

Reve 11:3 and I shall be giving to-the two Witnesses of Me and they shall be prophesying days a thousand, two hundred, sixty having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) sackcloth.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And JESUS filled the Prophecy of Moses.
Some say these 2 witesses are a type of "moses" and elijah" which appears to be pretty close.

Reve 11:3 and I shall be giving to-the two Witnesses of Me and they shall be prophesying days a thousand, two hundred, sixty having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) sackcloth.

I agree. I see other similiar connections to previous people in the Bible from OT to NT.

How about the son that was taken to the mountain to be sacrfificed and then a lamb (or was it a sheep?) showed up to takes his place? Kind of telling...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree. I see other similiar connections to previous people in the Bible from OT to NT.

How about the son that was taken to the mountain to be sacrfificed and then a lamb (or was it a sheep?) showed up to takes his place? Kind of telling...

The book of Revelation is the Final Consummation of all the Prophecies in the OT in my view.

I would gather to even say those 2 witnesses in Revelation are of the Judeans and OC Israelites.

Revelation is badly translated in most versions, so I couldn't really start harmonizing it until I got it translated. What a BOOK!!!!

Luke 24:44 He said yet toward them "these the words of Me which I speak toward ye still being together ye, that is binding to be filled all the having been Written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and Psalms about Me".

Reve 11:3 and I shall be giving to-the two Witnesses of Me and they shall be prophesying days a thousand, two hundred, sixty having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) sackcloth.

Reve 7:13 And answered one out of the elders saying to me "these, the ones having-been-about-cast/peri-beblhmenoi <4016> (5772) the robes, the whites, who-any they-are and whence they came"? [Revelation 11:3]

 

[squint]

I see, so if I say George Bush from Texas I have surnamed him?

Look, Jack, I put up the quotes and the names are bolded in the quotes. Peter was obviously not the only one surnamed by Jesus, OK? If you cannot read it what do you expect me to say about that? Perhaps you have been blinded by PETER? ...

But regardless... Jesus did not give any one else a different name. The closest I can even think of is John the Baptist being referred to as Elijah.

Judas was surnamed. James and John were also surnamed (by Jesus.) Cephas was surnamed. Levi is not the same name as Matthew or Matthi, Saul was surnamed, Barsabus was surnamed, Joses was surnamed, another Judas was surnamed etc etc etc...

None of these so named was for the reason of PREemminance.

Eph. 1:
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church


Eph. 3:
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man

So you claim is that Jesus gave Matthew the name Levi even though scripture never said that?

I claim? I can certainly read that Levi and Matthew are not the same names. Is that then 'my claim' or the claim that sets itself in front of my eyes?

enjoy!

squint