Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jiggyfly

New Member
Nov 27, 2009
2,750
86
0
63
North Carolina
Just curious Diana what you think of these scriptures( and how does it effect your concept of the ekklesia (not church) being built upon Peter?

Galatians 2:11-14
[sup]11[/sup] But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. [sup]12[/sup] When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. [sup]13[/sup] As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. [sup]14[/sup] When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?



Mar 8:33But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
 

EAHARA

New Member
Dec 24, 2009
57
4
0
Just curious Diana what you think of these scriptures( and how does it effect your concept of the ekklesia (not church) being built upon Peter?

Galatians 2:11-14
[sup]11[/sup] But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. [sup]12[/sup] When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. [sup]13[/sup] As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. [sup]14[/sup] When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?

This was an incident of Peter making a personal decision to engage in hypocritical behavior. Being a leader in the Church does not mean that you cannot make personal mistakes. It means that the Holy Spirit protects the office from your personal decisions, so that if you decide to change the truth of doctrine or moral teaching, somehow it will not come to pass.

There are two popes that come to mind who tried to change the truth. One was a Monophysite who, when elected to the papal office, told his supporters that he could no longer teach the Monophysite heresy. The Holy Spirit intervened to protect the Church from error.

The other one simply dropped dead the night before he was to sign the papers declaring some heresy (I forget which one it was) to be truth.

When Galileo was condemned, that was personal decision on the part of the pope and an error in judgment. It had nothing to do with doctrine or moral teaching. You need to learn the difference.
 

jiggyfly

New Member
Nov 27, 2009
2,750
86
0
63
North Carolina
If a church was/is built on Peter, then wouldn't that make it the church of Peter and another religious sect known as Peterism? Kinda like Paulism or Apolloism.
blink.gif



My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus' blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus' name.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miss Hepburn

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Christ is the Rock not Peter,so therefore Peter cannot be the Rock of whom the Church is built... Bout to go to sleep now,will comment more later...
I just noticed this debate question that has been beat to death for a few hundred years, but what the heck...

It's also sort of a "hit and run" post with no reason to back up this position.

Here's the basic argument as I've seen it presented over the years:

The Protestant's first claim is that it cannot be referring to Peter because the word for "Peter" is Gr. "petros" which refers to a movable stone rather than the "petra" of an immovable rock.

The Catholic response is that this was true for the Attic Greek of Plato and Aristotle, but it had no reference to the koine Greek of the gospels. In other words, this distinction had disappeared long before Jesus walked the earth. Turns out this is easily seen when comparing the two.

The Protestants have to concede this point. Score 1 for the Papists.

The Protestants then claim that "on this rock" Gr. "taute te petra" takes a feminine gender while Peter, Gr. "petros" is masculine in gender.

The Catholics point out that Jesus and his disciples didn't speak Greek, but Aramaic which is a gender neutral language so it is effectively no different than looking at it in English, e.g. "Your name shall be Rock and on this Rock I will build my church" So it has to be interpreted according to the context rather than the grammar.

The Protestant response goes something like this: While it is true that Jesus spoke Aramaic, it is also true that he spoke formal Hebrew, and probably Greek and Latin as these were the language of the conquerors of Israel. These were the languages of commerce as well, and any interactions with gentile would necessarily have had to been conducted in Greek or Latin. Conquerors rarely bend the knee to those they have conquered. It is the conquered who must learn the languages of the conquerors. Regardless, the gospels weren't written in Hebrew so we're fortunate to have the inspired and infallible, not to mention gender specific; word of God to help us discern the truth.

The Catholic response is to point out that the gospel writer couldn't very well refer to Peter as Petrina, or Patricia now could he? A good point.

The question then becomes: Why didn't the gospel writer just simply write "on this rock" in the masculine form then so as to allow it to agree in gender with "petros"? , e.g. "tautw tw petrw" to agree with "petros"? Especially given that the distinction between immovable rock and movable stone no longer existed.



The Catholic response? Scribal error.

It's not really a Catholic verses Protestant debate. I've seen a number of Non-denominational Christian churches make the same assertions the Catholic church makes; they just say that Peter wasn't a Catholic, and ascribe Peter's revelation and confession to themselves.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on me I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
That is how it is read, and that is not what it says. And it doesn't make sense.

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS AGREE, PETER IS THE ROCK

To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).
William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.
Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock
John Peter Lange German Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock
John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock
J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock
Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock
David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock
Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock
Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock
******************************************************************

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].Albert Barnes

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .”
(Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play
is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.”
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy"
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”
(The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter"
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
*************************************************************
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
It was never Pete, it was always revelation, of which you find very liitle amognst the religiuos organistaions, and tha tis what that whole 2 lines was about, Man tried building it on Peter and look what happened, He would be ashmed if he was here today.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on me I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
That is how it is read, and that is not what it says. And it doesn't make sense.

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS AGREE, PETER IS THE ROCK

To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).
William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.
Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock
John Peter Lange German Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock
John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock
J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock
Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock
David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock
Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock
Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock
******************************************************************

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].Albert Barnes

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification"
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .”
(Expositor's Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself"
["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play
is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.”
(Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.”
(New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Catholics to justify the papacy"
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.”
(The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter"
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
*************************************************************
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
In a nutshell, this is based on feelings and perceptions. I'll stick with what the text actually says.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
shnarkle said:
In a nutshell, this is based on feelings and perceptions. I'll stick with what the text actually says.
In a nutshell, your feelings and perceptions determine what the text says.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
shnarkle said:
The Protestant's first claim is that it cannot be referring to Peter because the word for "Peter" is Gr. "petros" which refers to a movable stone rather than the "petra" of an immovable rock.
Counter-claim
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

The Catholic response is that this was true for the Attic Greek of Plato and Aristotle, but it had no reference to the koine Greek of the gospels. In other words, this distinction had disappeared long before Jesus walked the earth. Turns out this is easily seen when comparing the two.
Where did you dig up this lame response?

The Protestants have to concede this point. Score 1 for the Papists.
Are you aware that "Papists" is an insult?

The Protestants then claim that "on this rock" Gr. "taute te petra" takes a feminine gender while Peter, Gr. "petros" is masculine in gender.

The Catholics point out that Jesus and his disciples didn't speak Greek, but Aramaic which is a gender neutral language so it is effectively no different than looking at it in English, e.g. "Your name shall be Rock and on this Rock I will build my church" So it has to be interpreted according to the context rather than the grammar.
"The Catholics" also point out that the FATHER revealed to PETER and only to PETER who JESUS was, and important and often neglected point in these discussions. "Your name shall be Rock and on this Rock" is correct grammar and context in the language Jesus spoke. Thank you for that
The Protestant response goes something like this: While it is true that Jesus spoke Aramaic, it is also true that he spoke formal Hebrew, and probably Greek and Latin as these were the language of the conquerors of Israel. These were the languages of commerce as well, and any interactions with gentile would necessarily have had to been conducted in Greek or Latin. Conquerors rarely bend the knee to those they have conquered. It is the conquered who must learn the languages of the conquerors. Regardless, the gospels weren't written in Hebrew so we're fortunate to have the inspired and infallible, not to mention gender specific; word of God to help us discern the truth.
Jesus could speak any language, it doesn't change the fact that He spoke Aramaic, and did all His life, even from the cross. There are no constructive pronouns that Greek grammar demands. When Matthew translated from the Aramaic to Greek, he had no choice but to follow the grammatical rules. The Aramaic demolishes the petros/petras argument. In Aramaic, Cephas is a rock is a rock is a rock.

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
he Catholic response is to point out that the gospel writer couldn't very well refer to Peter as Petrina, or Patricia now could he? A good point.

The question then becomes: Why didn't the gospel writer just simply write "on this rock" in the masculine form then so as to allow it to agree in gender with "petros"? , e.g. "tautw tw petrw" to agree with "petros"? Especially given that the distinction between immovable rock and movable stone no longer existed.
the Catholic response? Scribal error.
I suppose "lithos" (small stone) is a scribal omission. How would you like it if I made up nonsensical Protestant responses.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”


It's not really a Catholic verses Protestant debate. I've seen a number of Non-denominational Christian churches make the same assertions the Catholic church makes; they just say that Peter wasn't a Catholic, and ascribe Peter's revelation and confession to themselves.


Same assertions? Not even close.
The Aramaic affirms Peter's primacy as Jesus renames Peter in Aramaic in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42.
6 out of 9 times (depending on the translation) Paul addresses Greek speaking communities, using Peter's name in Aramaic. Why didn't he use Greek? Because "Kepha" or "Cephas" gets the point across, the ROCK upon which Jesus builds His Church.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The Protestant's first claim is that it cannot be referring to Peter because the word for "Peter" is Gr. "petros" which refers to a movable stone rather than the "petra" of an immovable rock.

Counter-claim
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Well, thanks for restating the argument I already presented, but why repeat an argument I already refuted?



Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Again, I have to ask why are you repeating an argument I already presented? I'm not disputing the stone/rock argument. Did you even read what I posted or are you just doing a copy/paste? I had hoped to present the argument in its entirety to show those who might want to present it that it was a pointless argument to begin with.


Quote
The Catholic response is that this was true for the Attic Greek of Plato and Aristotle, but it had no reference to the koine Greek of the gospels. In other words, this distinction had disappeared long before Jesus walked the earth. Turns out this is easily seen when comparing the two.


Where did you dig up this lame response?
Given that what I posted is essentially no different than this: "Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential." What's your excuse?



Quote
The Protestants have to concede this point. Score 1 for the Papists.


Are you aware that "Papists" is an insult?
It can be taken as an insult, especially by the thin skinned.
pa·pist
[ˈpāpist]

NOUN
a Roman Catholic.
ADJECTIVE
of, relating to, or associated with the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote
The Protestants then claim that "on this rock" Gr. "taute te petra" takes a feminine gender while Peter, Gr. "petros" is masculine in gender.

The Catholics point out that Jesus and his disciples didn't speak Greek, but Aramaic which is a gender neutral language so it is effectively no different than looking at it in English, e.g. "Your name shall be Rock and on this Rock I will build my church" So it has to be interpreted according to the context rather than the grammar.


The Catholics" also point out that the FATHER revealed to PETER and only to PETER who JESUS was, and important and often neglected point in these discussions. "Your name shall be Rock and on this Rock" is correct grammar and context in the language Jesus spoke. Thank you for that
Interesting interpretation. So the Father didn't reveal who Jesus was to anyone else ever? How does anyone come to Christ if the Father doesn't draw them? No, I seriously doubt that the Father meant for Christ to spend eternity with just Peter. Furthermore, all those who the Father chooses to reveal His Son are essentially in the same position Peter was when the Father revealed Jesus' identity to him. An often neglected point in these discussion is the fact that in the next scene we see Jesus referring to Peter as "satan"; not exactly the name I would want to hear leading the church.


Quote
The Protestant response goes something like this: While it is true that Jesus spoke Aramaic, it is also true that he spoke formal Hebrew, and probably Greek and Latin as these were the language of the conquerors of Israel. These were the languages of commerce as well, and any interactions with gentile would necessarily have had to been conducted in Greek or Latin. Conquerors rarely bend the knee to those they have conquered. It is the conquered who must learn the languages of the conquerors. Regardless, the gospels weren't written in Hebrew so we're fortunate to have the inspired and infallible, not to mention gender specific; word of God to help us discern the truth.


Jesus could speak any language, it doesn't change the fact that He spoke Aramaic, and did all His life, even from the cross. There are no constructive pronouns that Greek grammar demands. When Matthew translated from the Aramaic to Greek, he had no choice but to follow the grammatical rules. The Aramaic demolishes the petros/petras argument. In Aramaic, Cephas is a rock is a rock is a rock.
No, you have it the other way around. For your point to be valid, Matthew would have to have made a grammatical mistake, no? 'taute te petra" takes the feminine, and as both of us have already agreed, the stone/rock argument is moot due to the fact that there is no effective difference. So, I will ask the same question I asked before: Why not use the masculine form? It would have fit perfectly with the interpretation you're looking for.


Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Again, this is all besides the point. I'm not disputing that Jesus spoke Aramaic. No one disputes this. The point is that the gospels were WRITTEN in GREEK. This is what we're dealing with, and unless you want to go with the scribal error argument, what else have you got?

Quote
he Catholic response is to point out that the gospel writer couldn't very well refer to Peter as Petrina, or Patricia now could he? A good point.

The question then becomes: Why didn't the gospel writer just simply write "on this rock" in the masculine form then so as to allow it to agree in gender with "petros"? , e.g. "tautw tw petrw" to agree with "petros"? Especially given that the distinction between immovable rock and movable stone no longer existed.

Quote
the Catholic response? Scribal error.


I suppose "lithos" (small stone) is a scribal omission.
Why are you bringing that up? This is a completely moot point. The fact that the two words mean effectively the same thing points out that Jesus wasn't referring to him as a stone. The question is why use the feminine form of the word when the masculine would have worked just as well and explicitly pointed to Peter?




How would you like it if I made up nonsensical Protestant responses.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter,
Sorry, but a feminine noun, pronoun or article cannot refer to a masculine noun or pronoun. So, to answer your question as to how I'd like made up responses; fine by me, all the easier to refute them with.




The Aramaic affirms Peter's primacy as Jesus renames Peter in Aramaic in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42.
6 out of 9 times (depending on the translation) Paul addresses Greek speaking communities, using Peter's name in Aramaic. Why didn't he use Greek? Because "Kepha" or "Cephas" gets the point across, the ROCK upon which Jesus builds His Church.
I'm not denying that Christ gave Simon the name Peter. I'm simply pointing out that Peter is the masculine form of the word, and "petra" is the feminine form, and can never refer to a masculine noun.


John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.
I'm not questioning it either. I'm simply pointing out that a feminine article and noun can never refer to a masculine noun.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
shnarkle said:
The term was first used by Luther and Calvin in a derogatory manner. Before that it didn't exist. Now it's in the dictionary.
[ˈpāpist]

quote
given that what I posted is essentially no different than this: "Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential." What's your excuse?
So you are refuting yourself?
.Interesting interpretation. So the Father didn't reveal who Jesus was to anyone else ever? How does anyone come to Christ if the Father doesn't draw them? No, I seriously doubt that the Father meant for Christ to spend eternity with just Peter. Furthermore, all those who the Father chooses to reveal His Son are essentially in the same position Peter was when the Father revealed Jesus' identity to him. An often neglected point in these discussion is the fact that in the next scene we see Jesus referring to Peter as "satan"; not exactly the name I would want to hear leading the church
That's not the point. Peter was the only Apostle to initially receive this revelation, and the only one that could answer the question correctly: "Who do you say that I AM?" That is exegesis, not interpretive. But you deny Peter's revelation from God as a sign of preeminence. That's called bias.

Jesus calling Peter "Satan" had nothing to do with his teaching, but his lack of understanding. It's an overused excuse to diminish what Jesus said. Jesus gives each individual believer the keys of the kingdom; the authority to bind and loose? Resolve doctrinal disputes? That's an interesting interpretation.
What Jesus actually said in Aramaic has more weight than a Greek translation. Greek is a human language, but it is treated as if it was a divine language. GREEK GRAMMAR DOES NOT DICTATE WHAT JESUS MEANT.
No, you have it the other way around. For your point to be valid, Matthew would have to have made a grammatical mistake, no? 'taute te petra" takes the feminine, and as both of us have already agreed, the stone/rock argument is moot due to the fact that there is no effective difference. So, I will ask the same question I asked before: Why not use the masculine form? It would have fit perfectly with the interpretation you're looking for.
I have never gone with a "scribal error" and I have never seen that argument used. That's your invention. Jesus used the Aramaic for Peter in John 1:42, Cephas, which eliminates Greek translation difficulties. Paul uses the same Aramaic Cephas 6 times out of 9 to Greek speaking communities. Why? To get the point across. Peter is the boss. Besides, the NT was originally written in Aramaic, later translated into Greek, so WRITTEN in GREEK is not the "gotcha" argument you think it is.


what else have you got?
Over 65 NT verses showing Peter as leader and spokesman for all the Apostles; a lot of denial on your part.
Quote
I'm not questioning it either. I'm simply pointing out that a feminine article and noun can never refer to a masculine noun.




Catholics have been contending all along that Peter himself was the “rock”: not his confession of faith; nor Jesus Himself. Now it is widely accepted that this is indeed what the passage teaches. But for centuries, many (most?) Protestant commentators denied this, and it looks they did so primarily due to mere polemical reaction against the Catholic claim and Catholic dogmatic beliefs about the papacy, in part built upon this passage.

This is not just my opinion, but that of several prominent Protestant exegetes, past and present, as I will now demonstrate. These eminent Bible scholars maintain that the passage is very clear, and was only interpreted otherwise out of polemical reaction to the Catholic exegesis. If this can occur (rather strikingly) with regard to Matthew 16:18, who knows how prevalent the same tendency has been elsewhere in Protestant exegesis, wherever issues arise that are key to the Protestant-Catholic dispute?
Peter the “Rock”: Protestant Contra-Catholic Exegetical Bias

see my list of Protestant scholars in post #108 that is by no means comprehensive.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
THE PRIMACY OF PETER

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).
Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among apostles and works healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."
Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.
Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Quote
given that what I posted is essentially no different than this: "Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential." What's your excuse?

So you are refuting yourself?
Look at my first post. This isn't confusing. I simply presented a few arguments so that anyone could see that they were already admittedly refuted. They're not my arguments. I have an argument that hasn't been refuted, which you have yet to address. I've presented it repeatedly, yet you'd rather just keep wasting time with this. Why?



What Jesus actually said in Aramaic has more weight than a Greek translation.
We're not dealing with the Aramaic, and the fact is that the gospel writer wrote it in Greek. The fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic doesn't give Aramaic more weight.
Greek is a human language, but it is treated as if it was a divine language.
Fine. Just look at it as another language; Greek.

GREEK GRAMMAR DOES NOT DICTATE WHAT JESUS MEANT.
Greek grammar goes quite a long way in determining what the author meant, unless you're going to suggest that he didn't know what he was doing. Are you going to say it was scribal error? It sounds like you're just saying something effectively the same. Some sort of fault of the language itself. It's too specific? It needs to be more vague like the Aramaic? Is that it?


I have never gone with a "scribal error" and I have never seen that argument used. That's your invention.
No, it's not my invention. It was what a professor of Patristic studies told me. It was the only time anyone actually addressed the question with an actual answer.


Jesus used the Aramaic for Peter in John 1:42, Cephas, which eliminates Greek translation difficulties. Paul uses the same Aramaic Cephas 6 times out of 9 to Greek speaking communities. Why? To get the point across. Peter is the boss. Besides, the NT was originally written in Aramaic, later translated into Greek, so WRITTEN in GREEK is not the "gotcha" argument you think it is.
I'm not presenting some "gotcha argument". I'm not disputing that Jesus renamed him Cephas either. Why do you keep repeating this? I'm simply pointing out a rudimentary law of Greek grammar, i.e. a feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. You are claiming that 'taute te petra' which is in the feminine is referring to Peter. According to, not the church fathers, or the protestant polemics, but to the elementary laws of Greek grammar this cannot be the case. what else have you got?


Over 65 NT verses showing Peter as leader and spokesman for all the Apostles; a lot of denial on your part.
I wont deny any of them. I won't dispute any of them. I'm only disputing this one verse which you still can't seem to focus on. I'm not questioning it either. I'm simply pointing out that a feminine article and noun can never refer to a masculine noun.


Catholics have been contending all along that Peter himself was the “rock”: not his confession of faith; nor Jesus Himself. Now it is widely accepted that this is indeed what the passage teaches. But for centuries, many (most?) Protestant commentators denied this, and it looks they did so primarily due to mere polemical reaction against the Catholic claim and Catholic dogmatic beliefs about the papacy, in part built upon this passage.
Could be. I'll take your word for it. Makes no difference to me. I'm not presenting a polemical reaction against the Catholic claim. I'm simply pointing out a grammatical rule that any Greek child would acknowledge as valid and true. Why are you ignoring this point, and giving me a history lesson in polemics?

Here it is again for about the tenth time. A feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. So why didn't the gospel writer just simply put "on this rock" into the masculine form to agree with the masculine name? This would have been just as seamless as the Aramaic. There would have been no doubt that Jesus was referring to Peter, and I wouldn't be asking this question, and you wouldn't be ignoring it altogether and posting all sorts of passages that I'm not even going to read anyways because I'm not disputing the other passages. I'm disputing this one. The one I keep asking you about.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
THE PRIMACY OF PETER

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).
Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among apostles and works healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."
Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.
Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.
There was none greater than John the Baptist, and yet Jesus said he would be the last. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. So, can you address the only point I really presented in this thread? I'm not reading anymore walls of text that have nothing to do with what I posted. Especially since there so easily refuted with one line of scripture.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
shnarkle said:
There was none greater than John the Baptist, and yet Jesus said he would be the last. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. So, can you address the only point I really presented in this thread? I'm not reading anymore walls of text that have nothing to do with what I posted. Especially since there so easily refuted with one line of scripture.
Which point is that? The thread is 4 pages long.
You can't compare John the Baptist with Kepha because Kepha was a representative to the King in the Royal House of David, and John was a prophet. apples/oranges. The Gentiles, though called later than the Jews, should be made partakers of the promises made to the Jews. first/last. Your quote (Matt. 20:16) has nothing to do with Kepha. I'm going to use "Kepha" from now on because it is the Aramaic name Jesus and Paul used which has no Greek pronouns, and everyone there knew who the boss was. BEFORE AND AFTER Greek translations,

Given my long list in post #113, are you saying Kepha had no leadership and was not a spokesman for all the Apostles? I'm sure you can find one super line of scripture that says Kepha was not first among equals.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
shnarkle said:
Quote
given that what I posted is essentially no different than this: "Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential." What's your excuse?
Look at my first post. This isn't confusing. I simply presented a few arguments so that anyone could see that they were already admittedly refuted. They're not my arguments. I have an argument that hasn't been refuted, which you have yet to address. I've presented it repeatedly, yet you'd rather just keep wasting time with this. Why?
We're not dealing with the Aramaic, and the fact is that the gospel writer wrote it in Greek. The fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic doesn't give Aramaic more weight.
Fine. Just look at it as another language; Greek.
Greek grammar goes quite a long way in determining what the author meant, unless you're going to suggest that he didn't know what he was doing. Are you going to say it was scribal error? It sounds like you're just saying something effectively the same. Some sort of fault of the language itself. It's too specific? It needs to be more vague like the Aramaic? Is that it?
No, it's not my invention. It was what a professor of Patristic studies told me. It was the only time anyone actually addressed the question with an actual answer.
I'm not presenting some "gotcha argument". I'm not disputing that Jesus renamed him Cephas either. Why do you keep repeating this? I'm simply pointing out a rudimentary law of Greek grammar, i.e. a feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. You are claiming that 'taute te petra' which is in the feminine is referring to Peter. According to, not the church fathers, or the protestant polemics, but to the elementary laws of Greek grammar this cannot be the case. what else have you got?
I wont deny any of them. I won't dispute any of them. I'm only disputing this one verse which you still can't seem to focus on. I'm not questioning it either. I'm simply pointing out that a feminine article and noun can never refer to a masculine noun.
Could be. I'll take your word for it. Makes no difference to me. I'm not presenting a polemical reaction against the Catholic claim. I'm simply pointing out a grammatical rule that any Greek child would acknowledge as valid and true. Why are you ignoring this point, and giving me a history lesson in polemics?
Here it is again for about the tenth time. A feminine article and noun cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. So why didn't the gospel writer just simply put "on this rock" into the masculine form to agree with the masculine name? This would have been just as seamless as the Aramaic. There would have been no doubt that Jesus was referring to Peter, and I wouldn't be asking this question, and you wouldn't be ignoring it altogether and posting all sorts of passages that I'm not even going to read anyways because I'm not disputing the other passages. I'm disputing this one. The one I keep asking you about.
I give up. You win. And all the Protestant scholars in post #108, must be wrong.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Christ is the rock theory:

19 And I will give unto me the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever I shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever I shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Kepha's faith is the rock theory

19 And I will give your confession of faith the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever your confession of faith shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever your confession of faith shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What it actually says: (KJV)

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Test question: who or what is the focus on?
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I give up. You win.

You gave up before you even started to post your reply. You never addressed the argument in the first place.


And all the Protestant scholars in post #108,
must be wrong.

Who knows? As far as I can tell, you're the only one who is wrong here. You're the only one who is unable to address the text under discussion. Perhaps if you were able to address this point, we could move on and look at what all the Protestant scholars have to say.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
shnarkle said:
must be wrong.

Who knows? As far as I can tell, you're the only one who is wrong here. You're the only one who is unable to address the text under discussion. Perhaps if you were able to address this point, we could move on and look at what all the Protestant scholars have to say.
I have addressed the point by quoting Protestant scholars. You just don't like them. The primacy of Kepha does not rest on two words translated to a single verse. His primacy has to be in harmony with the whole of Scripture, which you seem to deny. Then there is the consensus of the Early Church Fathers. Then there is the hard facts of history, which you have to re-write or ignore. Either Jesus builds His Church on the person of Kepha, or He gives keys to a principle, which is absurd. Try and answer the question in post #118.

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” (Matt. 27:26) is Aramaic for “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” which Christ cried out on the Cross. When Christ spoke the above text to Peter, He did so in Aramaic. Because Jesus spoke Aramaic. Most ancient Biblical scholars believe Matthew was originally written in Aramaic as well as second-century Church Fathers who record that the Greek was a translation of an earlier Aramaic transcript. Therefore to really understand what Jesus meant and clear up any translation misunderstanding we need to go back to how Christ actually said it.

You uphold the Greek text to be the be-all-and-end-all, which it is not. The Aramaic presents a very strong argument, that's why you hide behind the Greek text. The Greek text was translated from the Aramaic, not the other way around.

The person who translated Matthew into Greek, during the first or second century, had a grammatical problem. You see, the current word for rock had a masculine and feminine version. The grammatically correct word in Greek was “petra” but that was a feminine noun and it wouldn’t work to call Simon “petra” so “petros” was used. The second “kepha” could then be used with the grammatically correct “petra.” So it ended up being “You are Petros and upon this petra...” As awkward as this was, it was grammatically correct.

Scholars admit that the original Aramaic play on words is lost when translated into Greek with the petros/petra distinction. Then when the English is translated from Greek there is a further loss of the pun as well as the meaning. It should read in English: “You, are Peter and upon this peter (rock) I build my kingdom.” Then you would catch Jesus’ play on words--a very Hebrew thing to do.

However, in the end, we need to build our theology not on a translation but on what Jesus actually said, in His own language. That helps with the nuances of understanding his meaning.

THOU ART KEPHA AND UPON KEPHA I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH

Protestant polemics is based on a grammatical problem, not what Jesus actually meant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.