How Tsunami Waves Did Not Touch Santhome Cathedral

CHENNAI (ICNS) – The tsunami waves have subsided, but a miracle is being talked about across Chennai. It is the story of how St Thomas’ miraculous post kept the invading waves away, sparing the newly renovated Santhome Cathedral.

The Cathedral, the world’s second basilica built on an apostle’s tomb, has been giving shelter to hundreds of tsunami victims ever since the waves ravaged many buildings across the coast.

But even though the killer tsunami waves devastated the Chennai coast, Father Lawrence Raj, the parish priest of the Santhome Cathedral Basilica, says “the sea did not touch our church.”

The reason? “We believe the miraculous post of St Thomas prevented the sea waters from entering the church,” says Father Raj.

The church that sits at the site where St. Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ, was buried after his death in the year 72 is located a few metres from the sea. While all the buildings on either side of the church were hit by the tsunami waves, the Santhome Cathedral remained unaffected.

Local people now say it is the St Thomas’ miraculous post that has kept the sea away on December 26.

According to Father Raj, the legend is that when St Thomas planted the post at the top of the steps leading to the Cathedral, he said the sea would not pass that point.

The priest saw from the terrace of church the angry sea in action, as it surged across the road and flooded the huts in front of St Thomas’ post, which is an innocuous looking log of wood, mounted on a cement pedestal.

The belief goes that a village in the Mylapore area was flooded when a huge tree trunk fell across the river. The local king brought a royal pachyderm to lug it away, but the task seemed impossible.

Then, according to legend, St Thomas came along, removed the girdle from his waist and handed it to a bystander and asked him to yank the log with it. He did so and the log was moved easily.

A mural in the Cathedral museum illustrates this incident. Father Raj says the current post is believed to be from that same log of wood.

Hundreds of homeless survivors who have been staying in the church ever since the tragedy hit them have prayed to St Thomas for saving them.

“It is St Thomas who has saved me. This church was untouched by the waters because of the miraculous power of the St Thomas post,” said K Sebastiraj, a fisherman who sought shelter in the Santhome Cathedral.

Now I'm going to tell you a few things that may be helpful.

What makes you think I haven't already thought about the very things you have said? I've been doing this for a few decades now.

As far as I can tell, you take a particular, and denominationally influenced, view of the English word "tradition" -- one I encountered more than 30 years ago in conversations with Jehovah's Witnesses, and then try to force that view into the rest of the conversation as though it were something Catholics hadn't considered before. Jesus speaks against "human tradition", but that neither logically, linguistically, nor Biblically says that all tradition is bad, and Paul tells his readers to stick to the paradosis they got from him, which suggests that in some cases it's good.

You point out, correctly, that our word "love" translates different Greek words. So what? Since some love is carnal, should we avoid the use of the word all together, or should we avoid all love? Some traditions are unreliable, as I said. But that does not mean that all are unreliable.

Similarly someone finds something so obvious that it takes a huge post to point it out. When I gently point out that if it takes that many words, maybe it's not obvious, he paradoxically responds that it's obvious if you look for it -- while the word "obvious" means that you don't HAVE to look for it, it's something you bump into whether you're looking for it or not, because it's "in the way" (ob + via + osus).

Then it is suggested, as a brand new idea, that some interpretations or translations might be influenced by denominational affiliation or that of the translators. You think? But I just got done saying that studying the Scriptures (In Hebrew and Greek - I didn't mention that, but why should I need to?) is among the things that led me to become Catholic, and it wasn't Catholic translations that I was reading, and my guides in interpretation were certainly not predominantly Catholic.

When I consider the appalling ignorance of Catholicism and the ease and glibness with which things which are not so or which are incoherent (absolvances? wha'?) are presented as triumphant proofs that Catholicism is corrupt, I begin to wonder if it wouldn't be better if there were some kind of entrance requirement, some way of asking the attackers to spend a little time finding out what Catholic teaching REALLY is before they attack it. It would save so much time.

Personally, I find the way we knock the lampstand over and make love to (woah! no "Love" is bad -- I mean, "know -- whoops,. that's bad too, what can I say? "have sex with") anyone within reach and the way we shed and drink human blood (especially that of babies) in our ceremonies quite appealing, spiritual, and meaningful, and I can't understand why the Emperor has a problem with it. "So many? To one Lion?"

They were persecuting and slandering us then, and they slander and persecute us now. I guess that's a non-Catholic tradition ...

Sorry for the grouchiness. The coffee hasn't reached the frontal lobes yet, I'm operating on the limbic system here. When I'm awake, I'm really quite friendly.

I am at work, sorry for the short reply::

1 - In first century Koine (NT) Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They did indeed possess the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some earlier Greek poetry. But by the first century this distinction was gone. Even Protestant Bible scholars are starting to admit this now. For example, see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan Books.

That would also mean the RCC would have to abandon their definition of who Peter is, if the words were interchangable.

If the ROCK is only a stone, then to base the foundation upon a church that is just a stone is meaningless.

We use words with double meanings, today, also, but when spoken clearly, and used in the same sentence, the two meanings is clear to all who just read it. :)

However, the use of the two synonymous words being disqualified due to the Aramaic language, falls flat,too, because the GREEK New Testament manuscripts pre-date Constantine, not post date Luther.

If the Greek texts which pre-date Constantine include the play on words of Peter and the ROCK, then they had to be there in the Aramaic, because it is the early RCC scribes/independent Churches that repeatedly wrote
that passage as a play on words.

That means the play on words had to exist in the aramaic as the way we see it today in the GReek, or else the centuries of RCC scholarship-Transcriptions/Independent Church transcriptions are deliberately false and misleading.

Right?

See it yet?

If the Aramaic is the original language of Matthew, and the Greek translation twists the words to create a play on words like that, BUT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of Matthew does NOT, then we have a FALSE translation, and an inaccurate Bible.

Even is ROCK meant PETER in this passage, was it the MAN that Christ built His Church upon or the TRUTHS that Jesus and the Disciples were just talking about?

Context is everything, and the subject matter was WHAT DID MEN CALL JESUS, WHO WAS JESUS IN THE EYES OF MEN.

Peter's future was NOT the topic of conversation. WHO JESUS WAS/IS/WHAT MEN SAY about Him was.

That is the whole point here, WHAT WERE THEY TALKING ABOUT.

They were talking about Jesus being the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the World, and THAT IS THE ROCK Jesus spoke of, the FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST.

There is NO WAY a sinful man in desperate need of a Saviour could be the foundation of Christ's Holy Church. Only the Sinless Jesus Christ could be that foundation.

That's why this is so simple, all you have to do is read it.
What is the topic?
What did they say?
WHere did the topic lead?
Who is thee topic about?

It is about Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

It is NOT about Peter.

The whole Petros/ petras argument has been pretty well debunked. Jesus spoke Aramaic, regardless of what language Matthew wrote in. There is no gender distinction in Aramaic, like there was in Greek. Jesus would have said "Kepha" to descibe the stone upon which his church was built. When Matthew went to write his gospel in Greek he would have had to change the feminine word "petras" to the masculine word "petros" in order to correctly refer to Peter. Peter is identified as Cephas in later epistles by Paul. If the whole "petra" means large stone and "petros" means small stone is rejected then there is no disctintion between the "stones" to which Jesus was referring.

It seems that the play on words existed in Aramaic since Jesus was saying that Peter was nownamed "Rock" and upon this "Rock" he is building his church.

The context was that Peter correctly identified who Jesus was. Jesus therefore expounds for several lines as to the role Peter will now play because of his understanding of Jesus' real identity. It was Jesus who turned the focus to Peter.

Further, why was Peter given the "Keys of the Kingdom," a responsibility not given to any other apostle? The other apostles were later given the power to bind and loose.None of the other apostles recieved the keys.Peter was set apart from the others.

As to Peter's status as a sinner. We are all Sinners. The Church was to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit working through Peter and the other Apostles. The fact that Paul later rebukes Peter just shows that even an apostle could stray from God's path. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals. Having spoken on the infallible tenets of the Catholic faith, doesn't mean that the Pope may not later sin on those same issues. It seems that under your interpretation Jesus founded his Church on himself and then departed, leaving the understanding of his Church to the individual believer. No wonder there are thousands of different denominatins all with their own interpretation of the BIble.

Jesus spoke Aramaic

We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke, only evidence of what language the Bible was written in, and I have yet to find a definite source declaring that Matthew was written in Aramaic. I don't doubt it, but I have been trying to find an Aramaic/English Interlinear online and cant. If you know of one, please ping me. But the reference of Jesus speaking aramaic at His crucifixion does NOT PROVE that Aramaic was the natural language of Jesus. Jesus, being the KING OF THE JEWS, the Promised Messiah to the Jews, would have spoken Hebrew.

I personally believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of the Jews, their formal language and also their common language, regardless of how common Aramaic was in that time period.

Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.

It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.

What did Paul say about building upon a MAN'S foundational work?

(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul's work in Rome.

(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.

(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::

(Gal 2:9 KJV) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!

Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.

There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter's supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.

SOME THOUGHTS ON MATTHEW 16:18
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html
by Pastor David Th. Stark

The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.

1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.

2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.

Petros, the name given to the Apostle.

Petra, the word used for rock.

Rome says that "Peter" (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But...

3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.

According to Liddell and Scott:

Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...

Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288

E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"

cf. Pl. Lg. 843a

X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."

S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"

Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark [the usual prose word is lithos]

from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)

NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.

Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.

Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.

5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

6. The Peshitta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?

7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas") is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas").

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'? There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.

Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.

PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:

Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac

9 times by the word SHU`A' ,

6 times by the word KE'PHA' and

1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'

Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:

7 times by the word SHU`A'

(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)

3 times by the word KE'PHA'

(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.

[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable).

[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.

In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."

KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS. Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is. The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.

Conclusion

a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant Manuscripts, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.

c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.

d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"

*** END ***

Click here to return to Grace Presbyterian Church’s homepage.
http://www.gpcredding.org/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.