New Covenant only for Jews?

[covenantee]

“When the supreme Roman pontiff teaches the universal church on matters of faith and morals he is without error”!

Peter was teaching the universal church on a matter of faith and morals when Paul rebuked him.

 

[BreadOfLife]

SO much for the true successors being of the CC . TIME to learn bibles . HURRY .

When YOU learn your Bible properly - them come and talk to me.
YOU don't even know WHERE your Protestant Canon came from . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

There goes bread o life on his recruitment to the CC again .
May i die ten thousand of the worst deaths long before i enter into those chambers .

 

[ewq1938]

When YOU learn your Bible properly - them come and talk to me.
YOU don't even know WHERE your Protestant Canon came from . . .

The RCC handled (dirty pagan hands) many things but that does not equal anything originating from the RCC. The Protestant canon rejects the Catholic canon anyways.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Greek says Petra.
Petra is Rock.
Rock is Christ, not Peter.

Greek says Petra.
Petra is Rock.
Rock is Christ, not Peter.

Christ IS the Rock – and SO is Peter and SO is Avraham
Time for a Bible and a Linguistics Lesson . . .

IF Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other in Greek – then you would have a point - but you don't..
HOWEVER, they didn’t speak in Greek – they spoke in Aramaic. Greek was the lingua franca of commerce in the 1st century and had a FAR more broadly used than Aramaic, so it’s why the Books of the NT are written in Greek.

The Aramaic word for “Rock” is “Kepha”. There is NO distinction between “little rock” and “large rock” – just “ROCK”.
So, what Jesus actually said to Simon was:
Matt. 16:18
“And so I say to you, you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock).”

This is why Peter is referred to as Cephas in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.
This couldn’t be related properly in the Greek because “Petra” is a FEMININE noun.
Unlike English, many other languages employ feminine and masculine traits to nouns and verbs.

Your false beliefs about Peter NOT being the Rock in Matt. 16:18 are only as old as the Protestant Revolt some 500 years ago
Christ’s Church has been around a LOT longer than that . . .

Finally - Jesus is the NOT the only “Rock” mentioned in Scripture, although He is the most important one.
Abraham is ALSO called the “Rock” in Isa. 51”1-2 – and Peter in Matt. 16:18.
You might also want to turn to Isaiah 22, which shows a prefigurement of what happened in Matt. 16:18 . . .

Isaiah 22:20–22 - In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the keyof the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matt. 16:18-19 - And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedin heaven."

 

[BreadOfLife]

There goes bread o life on his recruitment to the CC again .
May i die ten thousand of the worst deaths long before i enter into those chambers .

You MAY get your wish – so don’t say you weren’t warned. . . .

PS – You’ve dodged this issue about the Canon of Scripture on at LEAT 5 threads in the last several months.
Do you ANY idea where you got the Canon of Scripture from?

 

[covenantee]

Christ IS the Rock – and SO is Peter and SO is Avraham
Time for a Bible and a Linguistics Lesson . . .

IF Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other in Greek – then you would have a point - but you don't..
HOWEVER, they didn’t speak in Greek – they spoke in Aramaic. Greek was the lingua franca of commerce in the 1st century and had a FAR more broadly used than Aramaic, so it’s why the Books of the NT are written in Greek.

The Aramaic word for “Rock” is “Kepha”. There is NO distinction between “little rock” and “large rock” – just “ROCK”.
So, what Jesus actually said to Simon was:
Matt. 16:18
“And so I say to you, you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock).”

This is why Peter is referred to as Cephas in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.
This couldn’t be related properly in the Greek because “Petra” is a FEMININE noun.
Unlike English, many other languages employ feminine and masculine traits to nouns and verbs.

Your false beliefs about Peter NOT being the Rock in Matt. 16:18 are only as old as the Protestant Revolt some 500 years ago
Christ’s Church has been around a LOT longer than that . . .

Finally - Jesus is the NOT the only “Rock” mentioned in Scripture, although He is the most important one.
Abraham is ALSO called the “Rock” in Isa. 51”1-2 – and Peter in Matt. 16:18.
You might also want to turn to Isaiah 22, which shows a prefigurement of what happened in Matt. 16:18 . . .

Isaiah 22:20–22 - In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the keyof the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matt. 16:18-19 - And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedin heaven."

Thank God for the Reformation, which liberated His True Church from the heresies and blasphemies of the apostate papacy.

From your Codex Vaticanus:

Matt 16:18 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]14ac1
Καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

πετρος is petros
πετρα is petra

Jesus and Peter knew the difference.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said,Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

A petros stone.

John knew the difference.

Why don't you?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The RCC handled (dirty pagan hands) many things but that does not equal anything originating from the RCC. The Protestant canon rejects the Catholic canon anyways.

I don’t know what “RCC” means – but the Canon of Scripture was compiled and declared by the Catholic Church in 383AD, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, per Jesus (John 16:12-15).

As to your evasive and nonsensical claim above in RED –
The Protestant Canon did not fall from the sky. It has the EXACT SAME Books as the Catholic NT but they deleted 7 Books and parts opf Esther and Daniel from the OT, which makes it an incomplete collection.

So – WHERE did your Protestant Canon come from?
If you don’t have an answer – I’ll educate you on the matter.

 

[WPM]

Christ IS the Rock – and SO is Peter and SO is Avraham
Time for a Bible and a Linguistics Lesson . . .

IF Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other in Greek – then you would have a point - but you don't..
HOWEVER, they didn’t speak in Greek – they spoke in Aramaic. Greek was the lingua franca of commerce in the 1st century and had a FAR more broadly used than Aramaic, so it’s why the Books of the NT are written in Greek.

The Aramaic word for “Rock” is “Kepha”. There is NO distinction between “little rock” and “large rock” – just “ROCK”.
So, what Jesus actually said to Simon was:
Matt. 16:18
“And so I say to you, you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha (Rock).”

This is why Peter is referred to as Cephas in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.
This couldn’t be related properly in the Greek because “Petra” is a FEMININE noun.
Unlike English, many other languages employ feminine and masculine traits to nouns and verbs.

Your false beliefs about Peter NOT being the Rock in Matt. 16:18 are only as old as the Protestant Revolt some 500 years ago
Christ’s Church has been around a LOT longer than that . . .

Finally - Jesus is the NOT the only “Rock” mentioned in Scripture, although He is the most important one.
Abraham is ALSO called the “Rock” in Isa. 51”1-2 – and Peter in Matt. 16:18.
You might also want to turn to Isaiah 22, which shows a prefigurement of what happened in Matt. 16:18 . . .

Isaiah 22:20–22 - In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the keyof the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matt. 16:18-19 - And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedin heaven."

There is one Rock - Christ Jesus. Only idolaters like the Roman catholic "church" think otherwise.

 

[WPM]

You MAY get your wish – so don’t say you weren’t warned. . . .

PS – You’ve dodged this issue about the Canon of Scripture on at LEAT 5 threads in the last several months.
Do you ANY idea where you got the Canon of Scripture from?

It wasn't the apostate Roman "church," it was the ECFs, most of whom came before the Roman system.

 

[ewq1938]

I don’t know what “RCC” means

You are the only one who doesn't.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank God for the Reformation, which liberated His True Church from the heresies and blasphemies of the apostate papacy.

From your Codex Vaticanus:

Matt 16:18 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]14ac1
Καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

πετρος is petros
πετρα is petra

Jesus and Peter knew the difference.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said,Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

A petros stone.

John knew the difference.

Why don't you?

I am completely flabbergasted at how far over your head my explanation went. I used this SAME explanation on my 7th grade CCD class – they they ALL got it.

In order to “prove” me wrong –about the Greek in Matt. 16:18, YOU basically posted your previous argument about the word “Petros” – which I ALREADY debunked in my last post.
ONE more time . . .

“Petros” is a MASCULINE noun, which is why it is used for Simon’s new name.
If it was translated into Aramaic - the language they actually spoke in – it would have been “Kepha”, which is NEITHER masculine NOR feminine.
If Matthew had used the word, “Petra”, as Simon’s new name – everybody would have LAUGHED at him. It would be akin to calling him “Patricia”.

I challenge you to find another instance in Scripture where a man is given a WOMAN’S name in the Greek.

As for John 1:42 - - what’s your point??
It says: “. . .thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.”

A ROCK and a STONE are the SAME thing, Einstein.
And here is a litany of some of your most respected Protestant scholars on this passage – and they ALL disagree with YOU . . .

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars on Peter the Rock:
William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647
JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which -in accordance with the words of the text -applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
‘The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate’
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock’. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock’ (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary -New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: ‘Thou art Rock, and upon this rock’, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, ‘Thou are kipho, and on this kipho’. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, ‘Thou are kepha, and on this kepha’.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: ‘Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre’; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, ‘Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.’
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, ‘You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church’. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
‘Matthew’
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

 

[BreadOfLife]

Continued . . .

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname ‘Peter’ (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, ‘You are Peter’, parallels Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ’, as if to say, ‘Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are”The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in v. 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.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. 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’
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. ‘Simon’, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the ‘rock’ on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this 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 Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matt. 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

 

[WPM]

I am completely flabbergasted at how far over your head my explanation went. I used this SAME explanation on my 7th grade CCD class – they they ALL got it.

In order to “prove” me wrong –about the Greek in Matt. 16:18, YOU basically posted your previous argument about the word “Petros” – which I ALREADY debunked in my last post.
ONE more time . . .

“Petros” is a MASCULINE noun, which is why it is used for Simon’s new name.
If it was translated into Aramaic - the language they actually spoke in – it would have been “Kepha”, which is NEITHER masculine NOR feminine.
If Matthew had used the word, “Petra”, as Simon’s new name – everybody would have LAUGHED at him. It would be akin to calling him “Patricia”.

I challenge you to find another instance in Scripture where a man is given a WOMAN’S name in the Greek.

As for John 1:42 - - what’s your point??
It says: “. . .thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.”

A ROCK and a STONE are the SAME thing, Einstein.
And here is a litany of some of your most respected Protestant scholars on this passage – and they ALL disagree with YOU . . .

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars on Peter the Rock:
William Hendriksen
member of the 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 647
JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which -in accordance with the words of the text -applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
‘The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate’
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock’. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. 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.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock’ (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary -New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: ‘Thou art Rock, and upon this rock’, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, ‘Thou are kipho, and on this kipho’. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, ‘Thou are kepha, and on this kepha’.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: ‘Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre’; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, ‘Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.’
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
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. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, ‘You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church’. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
‘Matthew’
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

You have debunked nothing apart from your own argument. The vast bulk of Reformed theologians sing from the same hymn sheet - Christ is the Rock. Your theology is built upon man, so it is not surprising you refuse to base your beliefs on Scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is one Rock - Christ Jesus. Only idolaters like the Roman catholic "church" think otherwise.

Absolutely. What Him being The Rock means is the same thing as calling Him the chief cornerstone of the temple of God/church like Paul does here:

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Only Jesus is The Rock, the Chief Cornerstone of the church. Not Peter. Not anyone else. Peter and the other apostles and prophets are part of the foundation of the church, but are not The Rock and Chief Cornerstone in whom "the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord". It's unfortunate that Catholicism teaches so many lies and puts people on a pedestal that only Jesus Christ belongs on.

 

[covenantee]

I am completely flabbergasted at how far over your head my explanation went. I used this SAME explanation on my 7th grade CCD class – they they ALL got it.

In order to “prove” me wrong –about the Greek in Matt. 16:18, YOU basically posted your previous argument about the word “Petros” – which I ALREADY debunked in my last post.
ONE more time . . .

“Petros” is a MASCULINE noun, which is why it is used for Simon’s new name.
If it was translated into Aramaic - the language they actually spoke in – it would have been “Kepha”, which is NEITHER masculine NOR feminine.
If Matthew had used the word, “Petra”, as Simon’s new name – everybody would have LAUGHED at him. It would be akin to calling him “Patricia”.

I challenge you to find another instance in Scripture where a man is given a WOMAN’S name in the Greek.

As for John 1:42 - - what’s your point??
It says: “. . .thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.”

I have no idea what you're babbling about. Neither do you.

Do both petros and petra appear in Matthew 16:18 in your Codex Vaticanus?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Continued . . .

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname ‘Peter’ (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, ‘You are Peter’, parallels Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ’, as if to say, ‘Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are”The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in v. 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.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. 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’
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. ‘Simon’, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the ‘rock’ on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this 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 Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matt. 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

Congrats on quoting some people who are as lacking in spiritual discernment regarding this issue as you are.

 

[Marvelloustime]

When YOU learn your Bible properly - them come and talk to me.
YOU don't even know WHERE your Protestant Canon came from . . .

@amigo de christo is not a Protestant. He is a fundamental bible believing Christian. Period.

 

[Davy]

Why does it say the "New Covenant" Jesus made is only for the Jews?

Hebrews 8:8 - But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

One must read more there to get the context flow...

Heb 8:8-11
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Per OT history, the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" were two separate kingdoms that God caused because of Solomon's sin (see 1 Kings 11 to 2 Kings 17).

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
KJV

Notice the above repeat about that new covenant is mentioned there ONLY to the "house of Israel" (ten tribes). The "house of Israel" represents mainly Israelites of the ten scattered tribes which God scattered among the Gentiles first. These were not Jews, but they were Israelites. As of today, the Jews do not know where these ten lost tribes wound up, but in Jospehus' day in 100 A.D., they were still scattered beyond Euphrates, and were a great people, too many to count.

The minds of many today about the "house of Israel" is like possums playing dead, acting as if the ten lost tribes have been forgotten by God, when likely the ten lost tribes make up the majority of the Caucasian peoples in the world, have fulfilled God's promise they would be as many as the sands of the sea, and stars of the sky.

The New Covenant is for the Jews also though, as many of them are scattered with the ten lost tribes also. And when Jesus returns, the blindness upon the unbelieving Jews will be removed, and then many of them will convert to Jesus Christ (see Romans 11). But it's interesting that Hebrews 8:10 only mentions the "house of Israel" (ten lost tribes).

 

[amigo de christo]

@amigo de christo is not a Protestant. He is a fundamental bible believing Christian. Period.

If the bible says it WE believe it .