The missing piece of the YOU ARE PETER puzzle

[Rick Otto]

The truth is getting harder to ignore. However, I am convinced there will be some stubborn hold outs that cling to false teachings of old.

Peter is the Rock in Matt 16:16


"Interesting developments in the exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19 have occurred in the Protestant world since the turn of this century. Many Protestant scholars have come to the conclusion that Peter is indeed the rock to which Jesus referred. Renowned Protestant theologians such as Oscar Cullman and Herman Ridderbos have written voluminous works works exegeting Matthew 16:18 in fine detail, showing that classical Protestant exegesis is full of false assumptions and shortcomings. One of the most salient errors pointed out by these sources is the Protestant claim that that the original Greek of Matthew 16:18 made a lexical distinction between Peter (Greek: petros) and rock (Greek: petra). Petros was understood to be a small stone or pebble, while petra was understood to be a huge, immovable rock, or rocky cliff. Conclusion: Peter could not be the rock to which Jesus referred, since it is obvious that a small stone is not a huge, immovable rock. In discovering more about Greek etymology, however, Protestant scholars learned that petros and petra are actually interchangeable terms. Though desiring to complete the pun and convey assonance, the Gospel writer was simply limited by the fact that since Peter is a masculine name, it must be designated by a masculine Greek noun (i.e., petros), whereas petra is a feminine noun."

That's great for the sophisticated argument types that can cope with iffy assumptions about multi-lingual culture, but I'm so simple minded, I never got past the switch in pronouns from personal ("thou art Peter"), to impersonal ("upon this rock").
Every version I've ever seen translates it the same, and not only does Jesus not say "and upon YOU I will build," "upon this rock" doesn't capitalise "rock" as if to refer to a person.
I've listened to the Greek / Aramic arguments but no one has ever addressed what seems most obvious to me at first glance.
I have to confess though, I'm less impressed by academic credentials than I am by sound reasoning. The history of corrupting influences in those institutions gives me pause and tempers my expectations.

 

[Albion]

That's great for the sophisticated argument types that can cope with iffy assumptions about multi-lingual culture, but I'm so simple minded, I never got past the switch in pronouns from personal ("thou art Peter"), to impersonal ("upon this rock").
Every version I've ever seen translates it the same, and not only does Jesus not say "and upon YOU I will build," "upon this rock" doesn't capitalise "rock" as if to refer to a person.
I've listened to the Greek / Aramic arguments but no one has ever addressed what seems most obvious to me at first glance.
I have to confess though, I'm less impressed by academic credentials than I am by sound reasoning. The history of corrupting influences in those institutions gives me pause and tempers my expectations.

But, once again and despite what you've pointed out, EVEN IF the translation and meaning are said to be exactly what the Roman Church wants, there is nothing, nada, zip, zero in there that indicates that anyone other than Peter is endowed with anything because of this passage. That notion comes totally from human theorizing and it is the basis of the doctrine of Papal Supremacy (and, later, Papal Infallibility), not the part about Peter and Rock.

 

[Standing Up]

That's great for the sophisticated argument types that can cope with iffy assumptions about multi-lingual culture, but I'm so simple minded, I never got past the switch in pronouns from personal ("thou art Peter"), to impersonal ("upon this rock").
Every version I've ever seen translates it the same, and not only does Jesus not say "and upon YOU I will build," "upon this rock" doesn't capitalise "rock" as if to refer to a person.
I've listened to the Greek / Aramic arguments but no one has ever addressed what seems most obvious to me at first glance.
I have to confess though, I'm less impressed by academic credentials than I am by sound reasoning. The history of corrupting influences in those institutions gives me pause and tempers my expectations.

Taken awhile for me to get it, but excellent point.

You are Peter, upon this rock I will build ...
vs
You are Peter, upon you I will build ...

OTOH, they do claim via Tradition to have Peter's bones upon which their cathedral is built

 

[Standing Up]

But, once again and despite what you've pointed out, EVEN IF the translation and meaning are said to be exactly what the Roman Church wants, there is nothing, nada, zip, zero in there that indicates that anyone other than Peter is endowed with anything because of this passage. That notion comes totally from human theorizing and it is the basis of the doctrine of Papal Supremacy (and, later, Papal Infallibility), not the part about Peter and Rock.

That was Tertullian's point. What sort of man usurps what was given to Peter alone?

 

[Albion]

Taken awhile for me to get it, but excellent point.

You are Peter, upon this rock I will build ...
vs
You are Peter, upon you I will build ...

OTOH, they do claim via Tradition to have Peter's bones upon which their cathedral is built

The bones don't prove anything other than that Peter was in Rome--an idea that is generally accepted as true. But what of the fact that Peter and Rock are similar words and Christ appears to be making a pun here?

 

[Metal Minister]

The bones don't prove anything other than that Peter was in Rome--an idea that is generally accepted as true. But what of the fact that Peter and Rock are similar words and Christ appears to be making a pun here?

I would also argue, how does anyone know they are Peter's bones? There is also a claim that a priest actually turned the communion wafer into heart muscle, but it was never allowed to be studied by unbiased hands...

 

[Standing Up]

The bones don't prove anything other than that Peter was in Rome--an idea that is generally accepted as true. But what of the fact that Peter and Rock are similar words and Christ appears to be making a pun here?

I think Rick's nailed it.

Everyone loves to speculate, but clearly if Jesus wanted us to think like RC interprets, He would have said, you are Peter and upon you I will build. But He didn't.

It probably is a pun, even Peter will say we too lively stones. But we're built on a 12 rock foundation, with Christ as the Rock.

As mentioned many times, if Peter was given special keys, he exercised them once by preaching first to Jew and Gentile. The doors to the kingdom are open. The gates of hell won't prevail.

 

[Standing Up]

I would also argue, how does anyone know they are Peter's bones? There is also a claim that a priest actually turned the communion wafer into heart muscle, but it was never allowed to be studied by unbiased hands...

Even if true, that disproves the theory it is all body, soul, divinity. Sorta punches in the face their own notion. Not good.

 

[concretecamper]

Gee. A Catholic position paper as reproduced from a Catholic publication.

I wonder if you would be persuaded by reading "The Priest Who Found Christ"--the story of a Catholic priest who converted to Protestantism. Immediately convinced, do you think?

Talk to your protestant brothers....dont complain to me

You must be the stubborn hold out....huh

 

[concretecamper]

That's great for the sophisticated argument types that can cope with iffy assumptions about multi-lingual culture, but I'm so simple minded, I never got past the switch in pronouns from personal ("thou art Peter"), to impersonal ("upon this rock").
Every version I've ever seen translates it the same, and not only does Jesus not say "and upon YOU I will build," "upon this rock" doesn't capitalise "rock" as if to refer to a person.
I've listened to the Greek / Aramic arguments but no one has ever addressed what seems most obvious to me at first glance.
I have to confess though, I'm less impressed by academic credentials than I am by sound reasoning. The history of corrupting influences in those institutions gives me pause and tempers my expectations.

Wow....I am SHOCKED ....

 

[Albion]

I think Rick's nailed it.

Everyone loves to speculate, but clearly if Jesus wanted us to think like RC interprets, He would have said, you are Peter and upon you I will build. But He didn't.

What I'm saying is that the rejection of the purely manmade theory about Petrine Supremacy which developed hundreds of years later does not rest upon the point that Rick made. He may be right, but he's not supported by theologians who similarly reject the RCC's interpretation of that passage.

 

[barryatlake]

No, Jesus changed Peter's name to rock and on Peter's new name of rock is what Jesus built His church upon, Why would Jesus build His earthly church upon Himself when He knew that He would be returning to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. A shepherd would never leave his flock without a tangible shepherd to command [ same commands ] the sheep.

 

[Rick Otto]

Taken awhile for me to get it, but excellent point.

You are Peter, upon this rock I will build ...
vs
You are Peter, upon you I will build ...

OTOH, they do claim via Tradition to have Peter's bones upon which their cathedral is built

Right. As humorous as "taking coincidence seriously" may seem in this instance, it follows the grain of the entire authoritarian/literalist mindset, consciously or not.

I am trying to imagine the experience of the English translators.
Did they imagine a person like me might ever exist and wonder about the pronoun thing? I mean, why would they go with the impersonal "this", if Jesus was intending the personal ("and upon thee, Rock, I will build my church")?

The whole thing is just counter-intuitive from my perspective.
...But then Jesus is tangible enough to me, so in a sense, it makes a sort of sense.
lol

 

[Fireinfolding]

Right. As humorous as "taking coincidence seriously" may seem in this instance, it follows the grain of the entire authoritarian/literalist mindset, consciously or not.

I am trying to imagine the experience of the English translators.
Did they imagine a person like me might ever exist and wonder about the pronoun thing? I mean, why would they go with the impersonal "this", if Jesus was intending the personal ("and upon thee, Rock, I will build my church")?

The whole thing is just counter-intuitive from my perspective.
...But then Jesus is tangible enough to me, so in a sense, it makes a sort of sense.
lol

I agree, I have always thought the whole thing was pretty [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

What did I say? lol

 

[Rick Otto]

What I'm saying is that the rejection of the purely manmade theory about Petrine Supremacy which developed hundreds of years later does not rest upon the point that Rick made. He may be right, but he's not supported by theologians who similarly reject the RCC's interpretation of that passage.

If you ever get the chance, let those theologians know Rick Otto is right and deserves their support.
lol, this what I call a happy New year.

 

[Rick Otto]

I agree, I have always thought the whole thing was pretty [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

What did I say? lol

LoL!

 

[Fireinfolding]

I cant believe it censored me on a word which definition is just stupid, (or "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age").

Okay, no "R" word then, in a time when I grew up it was a word people used for dumb stuff.

 

[Albion]

I cant believe it censored me on a word which definition is just stupid, (or "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age").

Okay, no "R" word then, in a time when I grew up it was a word people used for dumb stuff.

I know. It hurts someone's feelings. But of course you can call the same people, or anyone else, a bigot, racist, hater, or whatever, and nothing happens.

 

[barryatlake]

God has always changed somebody's name when that person was given a special mission. Why do we call him Peter instead of Simon? What's the point of changing his name if he isn't being called to do something special?
In English you can make this case because nowadays Peter is recognized as a common acceptable name which many people have and a Rock is an object. But 2000 years ago this name was uncommon. Jesus literally said, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church. Then further on....
I will give you (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16: 15-19)

He is calling Peter the rock and He goes on in the next verse to give him special authority. Now the name change makes sense. When you have your name changed by God it is for a special purpose just like Abram's name was changed to Abraham, and Sarai's name was changed to Sarah.
__________________

 

[Fireinfolding]

I know. It hurts someone's feelings. But of course you can call the same people, or anyone else, a bigot, racist, hater, or whatever, and nothing happens.

Yeah, how'd you do that?


I was calling "an idea" stupid (using the R word) not a person.

Those words yo posted can be true of people too though.

Good to see you Albion