I agree with you that THE issue is not with geography, but with lordship. The “early fathers” are as fallible as you or I, evidenced by the quote you cited. What sophistry! Where the Lord Jesus is - THERE is the church. Nowhere in Scripture did Christ give any man lordship over the church, rightly interpreted as “the congregation” or “called out ones”.
For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm
“For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm";
I read the critique. Not moved.
We know Jesus named Simon “cephas” (John 1:42) which is from the Aramaic (”rock”). Thus, this was the original “phonetic” rendering of Simon’s new name, and thus ought to be the basis for understanding Jesus’ purpose the name change. “Petros” is a rendering of a name from the Aramaic (John 1:42)to a Greek rendering. Therefore, the distinction between Petra/Petros, if there really is one, is meaningless. It seems the issue is how to render kepha from Aramaic into a language, while rendering it now a name for a man (thus, the masculine “petros” is chosen).
Second, on the point of the language of Matthew, see the following site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm) and its comments on the language of Matthew’s gospel.
Cited in part from above: “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (”Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew....However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.”
In sum, Simon was named “rock”...not “little rock”.
“For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm";
I read the critique. Not moved.
We know Jesus named Simon “cephas” (John 1:42) which is from the Aramaic (”rock”). Thus, this was the original “phonetic” rendering of Simon’s new name, and thus ought to be the basis for understanding Jesus’ purpose the name change. “Petros” is a rendering of a name from the Aramaic (John 1:42)to a Greek rendering. Therefore, the distinction between Petra/Petros, if there really is one, is meaningless. It seems the issue is how to render kepha from Aramaic into a language, while rendering it now a name for a man (thus, the masculine “petros” is chosen).
Second, on the point of the language of Matthew, see the following site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm) and its comments on the language of Matthew’s gospel.
Cited in part from above: “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (”Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew....However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.”
In sum, Simon was named “rock”...not “little rock”.
“For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm";
I read the critique. Not moved.
We know Jesus named Simon “cephas” (John 1:42) which is from the Aramaic (”rock”). Thus, this was the original “phonetic” rendering of Simon’s new name, and thus ought to be the basis for understanding Jesus’ purpose the name change. “Petros” is a rendering of a name from the Aramaic (John 1:42)to a Greek rendering. Therefore, the distinction between Petra/Petros, if there really is one, is meaningless. It seems the issue is how to render kepha from Aramaic into a language, while rendering it now a name for a man (thus, the masculine “petros” is chosen).
Second, on the point of the language of Matthew, see the following site (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm) and its comments on the language of Matthew’s gospel.
Cited in part from above: “Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (”Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew....However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.”
In sum, Simon was named “rock”...not “little rock”.
Excellent link in post 20...It deserves it’s own thread, in my view...