"(Simon), you are large rock and on the same large rock I will build my Church (singular)."5 - A then-contemporary rabbinic expression equated "rock" with Abraham as the father of the Jewish nation.
"'Lo, I have discovered a rock to found the world upon.'He called Abraham 'rock', as it is said (Is 51:1-2): 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.'"Abraham, renamed by God from Abram to "father of nations", was the patriarchal head of God's chosen people. In like manner, God renamed Simon to Rock, to found his new church "to all nations" upon, the first patriarch of the new covenant. This is acknowledged in Protestant scholarship by William Barclay (The Gospel of Matthew, 2:140, Westminster Press, 1975) and David Hill (The Gospel of Matthew, 261, The New Century Bible Commentary, Eerdmans, 1972).
-- Yalkut 766 on Tanshuma B, Yelamdenu
Cephas acknowledges Jesus as Christ. (Cephas => Jesus)A few observations:
In response,
Jesus acknowledges Cephas as blessed (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus says Cephas had revelation from God (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus reiterates Simon is named Cephas (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus says Cephas is the foundation (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus gives only Cephas the keys (Jesus => Cephas)
Jesus gives Cephas bind/loose power (Jesus => Cephas)
Uhmm, no, I think you need to go reread scripture. Simon was given the name Petros at first meating if memory serves - long before this and presumeably because there was an issue of names. John 1:40 One of the two which heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. [42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
There were Two Simon's in the Group - Simon (called petros) and Simon the Caananite. For all we know the only reason for the name change was to prevent the confusion of calling Simon and having two people answer. No real reason to believe otherwise. He certainly wasn't named "a stone" for his ability to stand firm, His name rather symbolizes his inability to do so in denying christ three times. Petra is solid and immoveable, Petros is portable.
For everything you present I can punch holes right through it without so much as breaking a sweat. I've done it so many times it is old hat. And the problem is, that anyone with a bible and some time on their hands can do it. It isn't rocket science.
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.
And Zondervan is owned by who? And how are the words used in Scripture. We can play the citation game. Done that before too. It's moot. Petra and petros are not synonymous any more that agapo and agapi are. Rewriting history and language in order to support a bad lie just makes it look worse. So then there is the next whopper..
2 - Matthew's Gospel was not written in Greek originally
Good, present the Aramaic original now. You can't because it doesn't exist and for all we know, never has. furthermore, Keph is Chaldee - the root of the Aramaic Kepha meaning "rock". The Chaldee Keph is "hollow rock" Not massive rock. Kepha in the Aramaic is a generic term. Greek is lacking in a generic term as it's a language of specificity. So there is no dilution. For petros and petra to be used as seperate references, there has to be a reason. Petra is used all through scripture to reference bedrock, mountains, cliffs.. All of which have words in Aramaic. If there needed to be dilution, it would have been proper to use petros twice. It was not so done. The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on and are trying to manufacture one by beggeing credulity.. again.
3 - The use of 'this' refers to the immediately preceding proper noun, Rock (Peter's name). Reference to any other noun or verb would require a 'that' at a minimum.
No it doesn't. I'm typing at my keyboard. I'm going to sit my drink down on this. Oops. Again, begging credulity.
4 - In Greek, the word for "this" (taute) has a more immediate sense as in "this very" or "the same". Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter was:
Umm, now you're really begging. Been over this one before too. Kai means and, but..... Your reinterpreting the verse. That's a no no. this = the same in common language. It by no means points to the prior noun. It's just shorthand. Essentially, you're abusing language again.
Abraham, renamed by God from Abram to "father of nations", was the patriarchal head of God's chosen people. In like manner, God renamed Simon to Rock, to found his new church "to all nations" upon, the first patriarch of the new covenant
And I care, I really do. But your church has said the testimony of peter is the rock of foundation. How do you square the two versions. They pulled that rug out from under you. Even Dave knows that.. He was involved in the conversation when that came out on the CC threads.
6 - Peter alone is given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and in the OT (e.g., Is 22:22), the keeper of the keys was the chief steward under the King.
Not so. The keys to heaven are symbolic. This has been gone over as well. Christ opens and no one shuts, shuts and no one opens. Not Peter. But through Peter, the kingdome was opened to the Israelites. Peter however did not open the kingdom to the Gentiles. That was Paul. Peter was not the only one with access to the keys. Every apostle had them or they'd not have been able to preach the Gospel and reap a single soul for the kingdom. This is common knowledge stuff which you who don't know scripture seem to take as magical events from ignorance.
8 - If Jesus had meant anything or anyone other than Peter, then introducing the passage with 'You are Rock' would just muddle things
No it wouldn't. It is a device of understanding. You are a rock (piece of) but on the Mountain from which you broke off, I'll build of me... It's a play on words for demonstrative purposes. Nothing more or less. It muddles nothing. And saying it is is just absurd reaching in order to get people to accept without thinking. Nothing more.
10- Examine the way Matt 16:16-19 is structured:
Who cares. We can go over the structure again and again. It still comes out the same way - Jesus stating that he will found his church OF Himself on the testimony of Himself. As Paul later states - to be born again, we must believe on Christ and confess him with our mouths. An act of faith through revelation and it's done - just as in Peter's example. All this junk about Peter is merely Rome's means to an end - that being to try and control the church by puffing Peter into something he wasn't. In the doing, they obscure the gospel truth.
The rest as I've noted before is the typical heresay we see from people who've no way of knowing first hand - they're merely passing on heresay and wives tales. There's no direct evidence Peter was ever in Rome. There is for Paul oddly enough - nothing for Peter. That isn't to say he never entered Rome. But scripturally there was no reason for it to happen. It may have been the center of the empire; but, the jews had been expelled from Rome at one point and Peter's ministry was to the Israelites. Doesn't do much Good for him to be in Rome. And by the time per your church's claims, Peter should have been in Rome, the Rabbis in Rome were clueless about Christianity - they'd heard about it; but, had no idea.. Either you're accusing Peter of not doing his job, or your simply lying or in error. Can I pick... lol
Luke 22:
[24] A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
[25] And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
[26] But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
[27] For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.