Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mike Fieschko
Regarding Mt. 16:18, the Amplified Bible says: "I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church. . . ." Peter is "a large piece of rock," but the church is built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar"! Peter is also masculine gender and not feminine gender as petra is. The misuse of this verse has led people to wrongly believe that the church was built on St. Peter, who was supposed to have been "the visible head of the church" and the first Pope. Most importantly, such a belief about Peter from Mt. 16:18 has led to a wrong idea of how one finds salvation.

Thank G-d for the resources of the Internet to "rebut" these people, and that with authority......

62 posted on 04/18/2002 4:29:23 PM PDT by Malcolm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: Malcolm
Regarding Mt. 16:18, the Amplified Bible says: "I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church. . . ." Peter is "a large piece of rock," but the church is built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar"! Peter is also masculine gender and not feminine gender as petra is.

You're agreeing with me.

Our Lord said Simon Bar-Jonah was 'Rock' (giving Simon a new name), not 'Lady Rock' or 'Miss Rock'. The distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' doesn't exist in the Aramaic: the same word is used in both instances.

You're using the accident of a foreign language translation (Aramaic to Greek), and the limits of that new language, to interpret Our Lord's words.
65 posted on 04/18/2002 4:49:29 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: Malcolm
Peter was a man, and it would have been silly for Jesus to call him "Petra" when "Petros" would be the masculine for "Petra".

First, why would Jesus rename Simon Bar-Jonah in the first place? Just because he felt like it? It was obviously something important, because He did it AND it was written in the Gospels. It was an important things.

Second, why would Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven if he putting Peter in charge?

Mt 16:19-20
I will give you (singular) 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 loosed in heaven.

Why would Jesus rename Peter a "little pebble", then give him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose?

Early church fathers -- as early as the second and third centuries -- never doubted Peter's Primacy. In Acts, the Apostles deferred to Peter, and it is obvious from numerous references that Peter was their leader.

There is an unbroken line of succession from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II. Throughout the 2,000 years since Jesus Christ came, died, and rose from the dead, no doctrine has been changed by the Catholic Church. Doctrine remains as it had been since the time of the apostles, again showing how the Holy Spirit is working.

If you would like to read a paper with many Scriptural references on Peter, please go to: The Primacy of Peter or go to Peter the Rock. I won't post them here for length. There are many more things I can show you if you are at all interested.

God bless.

109 posted on 04/19/2002 10:13:39 AM PDT by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson