Replies

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.