New Covenant only for Jews?

[covenantee]

More dodgimg, I see . . .

Now - stop running and ANSWER the previous question:
Was Jesus’s name “Jesus” or was it “Yeshua” or was it “Iεσουσ” (ee-ay-sooce')??

Your silence is an admission of your total ignorance.

I've seen far more than enough papist gibberish and nonsense.

Go peddle it elsewhere.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I've seen far more than enough papist gibberish and nonsense.
Go peddle it elsewhere.

TRANSLATION:
"Oh, no!! I stuck my foot in my mouth - and now, I can't get it out!"
That’s what I thought you’d say.

I put you in a NON-winnable position when I exposed your linguistic ineptitude.

Consider yourself Historically, Linguistically and Scripturally SPANKED.
Next time, do your HOMEWORK . . . .

 

[covenantee]

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 Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built1.2 II. Peter has the Keys of Authority over the Earthly Kingdom, the Church1.3 III. Peter’s Keys and Papal Succession1.4 IV. The Church is Infallible and Supernatural1.5 V. The Church is Visible and One1.6 VI. The Church is...

www.scripturecatholic.com

"Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter."



"Christ" is a masculine noun.

But He is described as the feminine "Petra", the Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4)

There is therefore no reason that the masculine "Peter" could not also have been described as the feminine "Petra".

But he wasn't.

He was described as "Petros", the pebble.

Separate and distinct from Christ the "Petra", the Rock.

Matthew understood the difference and reflected it in Matthew 16:18.

Others don't.

 

[Illuminator]

"Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter."



"Christ" is a masculine noun.

But He is described as the feminine "Petra", the Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4)

There is therefore no reason that the masculine "Peter" could not also have been described as the feminine "Petra".

But he wasn't.

He was described as "Petros", the pebble.

Separate and distinct from Christ the "Petra", the Rock.

Matthew understood the difference and reflected it in Matthew 16:18.

Others don't.

Nonsense. The Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4) doesn't refer to Peter, but to a poetic expression of Christ in the Old Testament. Matthew understood the difference, you don't.
Biblehub:
1 Corinthians 10:4 - Warnings from Israel's Past
None of the Protestant commentaries agree with your Bible twisting.

​

 

[covenantee]

Nonsense. The Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4) doesn't refer to Peter, but to a poetic expression of Christ in the Old Testament.

Of course it doesn't refer to Peter, because he was not the Petra Rock. Christ is. Thanks for agreeing with me.

None of the Protestant commentaries agree with your Bible twisting.

Adam Clarke

Peter, πετρος, signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and our Lord, whose constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, to point out the solidity of the confession, and the stability of that cause which should be founded on The Christ, the Son of the Living God. See the notes at Luke 9:62.

Upon this very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα - this true confession of thine - that I am The Messiah, that am come to reveal and communicate The Living God, that the dead, lost world may be saved - upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psalm 118:22, The Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-Stone of the Corner: and to Isaiah 28:16, Behold I lay a Stone in Zion for a Foundation) - will I build my Church, μου την εκκλησιαν, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Ephesians 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers), was built on this living foundation stone: 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 2:5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this.

 

[Illuminator]

Of course it doesn't refer to Peter, because he was not the Petra Rock. Christ is. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Yes, I agree with you in this case. I don't agree that "rock" can only have one meaning, the one you select depending on which way the wind blows.

Adam Clarke

Peter, πετρος, signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and our Lord, whose constant custom it was to rise to heavenly things through the medium of earthly, takes occasion from the name, the metaphorical meaning of which was strength and stability, to point out the solidity of the confession, and the stability of that cause which should be founded on The Christ, the Son of the Living God. See the notes at Luke 9:62.

Upon this very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα - this true confession of thine - that I am The Messiah, that am come to reveal and communicate The Living God, that the dead, lost world may be saved - upon this very rock, myself, thus confessed (alluding probably to Psalm 118:22, The Stone which the builders rejected is become the Head-Stone of the Corner: and to Isaiah 28:16, Behold I lay a Stone in Zion for a Foundation) - will I build my Church, μου την εκκλησιαν, my assembly, or congregation, i.e. of persons who are made partakers of this precious faith. That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Ephesians 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers), was built on this living foundation stone: 1 Peter 2:4, 1 Peter 2:5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, επι ταυτη τη πετρα, to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this. On the meaning of the word Church, see at the conclusion of this chapter.

Adam Clarke, a Methodist, (1760 or 1762 - 1832) is outdated by a long list of mature scholarship as listed in post #1023, 1024, 1025 and 1023. The Methodist Church is in a state of schism over same-sex "marriages". You also borrow or support from any made-in-America relativistic liberals.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, your argument is that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Your anti-Peter animus is not biblical.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 The Primacy of Peter in Scripture2 Tradition / Church Fathers2.1 I. Peter Built the Church in Rome2.2 II. Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See2.3 III. Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Church Scripture The Primacy of Peter in Scripture Matt. to Rev. – Peter is...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[covenantee]

Adam Clarke, a Methodist, (1760 or 1762 - 1832) is outdated by a long list of mature scholarship as listed in post #1023, 1024, 1025 and 1023.

Provide a list of verbatim quotes by Reformation Protestants who claim that Clarke is "outdated".

The Methodist Church is in a state of schism over same-sex "marriages".

Nothing compared to the repetitive debacles of sexual abomination within your "church".

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter."



"Christ" is a masculine noun.

But He is described as the feminine "Petra", the Rock. (1 Corinthians 10:4)

There is therefore no reason that the masculine "Peter" could not also have been described as the feminine "Petra".

But he wasn't.

He was described as "Petros", the pebble.

Separate and distinct from Christ the "Petra", the Rock.

Matthew understood the difference and reflected it in Matthew 16:18.

Others don't.

I already gave you a sound Biblical and Linguistic thrashing with regard to the “Petros/Petra” nonsense back in posts 1025, 1026 and 1027. Literally, DOZENS of Protestant linguistic scholars acknowledge that Peter is the “Rock” of Matt. 16:18.

Only die-hard, ignorant Catholic-haters like YOU still cling to the cling to the long-debunked fallacy that he is a “pebble”.

In Isaiah 51:1 – Abraham is ALSO called “Rock”.
In the original Hebrew, the following word for “Rock” is defines as:

צור (rock)
1) rock, cliff 1a) rocky wall, cliff 1b) rock (with flat surface) 1c) block of stone, BOULDER 1d) rock (specific) 1e) rock (of God) 1f) rock (of heathen gods) n pr dei 1g) Rock

Incidentally, Einstein – this is ALSO the Aramaic definition - which is the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke,

You see, son – no matter HOW much you wish Peter wasn’t the “ROCK” – your own .and your OWN Protestant scholars disagree with you . . .

 

[covenantee]

I already gave you a sound Biblical and Linguistic thrashing with regard to the “Petros/Petra” nonsense back in posts 1025, 1026 and 1027. Literally, DOZENS of Protestant linguistic scholars acknowledge that Peter is the “Rock” of Matt. 16:18.

Only die-hard, ignorant Catholic-haters like YOU still cling to the cling to the long-debunked fallacy that he is a “pebble”.

In Isaiah 51:1 – Abraham is ALSO called “Rock”.
In the original Hebrew, the following word for “Rock” is defines as:

צור (rock)
1) rock, cliff 1a) rocky wall, cliff 1b) rock (with flat surface) 1c) block of stone, BOULDER 1d) rock (specific) 1e) rock (of God) 1f) rock (of heathen gods) n pr dei 1g) Rock

Incidentally, Einstein – this is ALSO the Aramaic definition - which is the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke,

You see, son – no matter HOW much you wish Peter wasn’t the “ROCK” – your own .and your OWN Protestant scholars disagree with you . . .

Might as well save your keystrokes and bytes. I don't decrypt gibberish.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Provide a list of verbatim quotes by Reformation Protestants who claim that Clarke is "outdated".

Another asinine challenge, as Adam Clarke, was born in 1762 - about 100 years AFTER the Reformation, Einstein.

That's as stupid as demanding "verbatim quotes" from Adam and Eve regarding car repait . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Might as well save your keystrokes and bytes. I don't decrypt gibberish.

No - you just don't like the Biblical land linguistic pounding you're receiving on this subject.

Can you refute even ONE of the Protestant scholarly sources that I presented in posts 1025, 1026 and 1027??

 

[covenantee]

Another asinine challenge, as Adam Clarke, was born in 1762 - about 100 years AFTER the Reformation, Einstein.

That's as stupid as demanding "verbatim quotes" from Adam and Eve regarding car repait . . .

There is no stupidity that exceeds yours. Reformation Protestantism was preeminent for 200 years after the end of the Reformation, which liberated the true Church from your spiritual tyranny, darkness, and oppression.

But what would a duped blinded papist like yourself know about that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no stupidity that exceeds yours. Reformation Protestantism was preeminent for 200 years after the end of the Reformation, which liberated the true Church from your spiritual tyranny, darkness, and oppression.

But what would a duped blinded papist like yourself know about that?

A LOT more than a duped, blinded Church-hater like yourself . . .

Protestant Reformation
Definition:
The Protestant Reformation (1517-1648) refers to the widespread religious, cultural, and social upheaval of 16th-century Europe that broke the hold of the medieval Church, allowing for the development of personal interpretations of the Christian message and leading to the development of modern nation-states.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Protestant_Reformation/
https://lutheranreformation.org/history/reformation-timeline/

The Protestant Revolt continues to THIS day - to the tune of tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering factions that ALL teach different doctrines based on the errors of each founder,

Clarke's views were demolished in my previous posts 1023, 1024 and 1025 by his "brother Protestants", who ALL have an ax to grind with Christ's Catholic Church . . .

 

[Illuminator]

There is no stupidity that exceeds yours. Reformation Protestantism was preeminent for 200 years after the end of the Reformation, which liberated the true Church from your spiritual tyranny, darkness, and oppression.

According to the "infallible" Seventh Day Adventists, or whatever made-in-America hate cult you profess.

But what would a duped blinded papist like yourself know about that?

"spiritual tyranny, darkness, and oppression" is a temper tantrum because your "Peter=pebble" lie has been debunked repeatedly, so you lash out with SDA propaganda or related facsimiles. Your false histories have also been repeatedly exposed. Anti-trinitarians like you are the reason threads get closed because you and your ilk degenerate threads into bash-fests.

 

[Rita]

Think this thread has run it’s course - it’s now locked x