The whole point of Jesus renaming Simon as Cephas builds to this single passage. Don't forget, this is God renaming someone to Rock. That is no trivial event. 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
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.
"Uhmm", you're presuming something I didn't say. I didn't say Jesus renamed Peter in Mt 16. (polemikos 1; havoc 0)
presumeably because there was an issue of names
Rrriiiggghhhttt. God renames somebody because "presumably because there was an issue of names". Sure. And He just happens to pick, out of the entire universe of possible names, an appellation (almost) exclusively reserved for the divine. (polemikos 2; havoc 0)
Petra is solid and immoveable, Petros is portable.
There's that faulty Greek again. And you're forgetting that he used Cephas originally. That's a double error. (polemikos 4; havoc 0)
Zondervan is owned by who? ... We can play the citation game. Done that before too. It's moot. Petra and petros are not synonymous
You don't recognize Zondervan? They're a huge Christian books publisher. And the author? He's a widely-read Protestant scholar.
D. A. Carson (Ph.D., University of Cabridge) is research professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He is the author or coauthor of numerous books, including Gold Medallion Award-winners.
You really need to get out more. Since your argument reduces to "well-known biblical scholar bad" versus "havoc good" I think it's fair to say you lost that round too. (polemikos 5; havoc 0)
Good, present the Aramaic original now
Don't have to. That's the beauty of the argument. The Aramaic is preserved for us in the Greek translation. We know Jesus spoke Aramaic. We know he called Simon Cephas. We know Kepha means large rock.(polemikos 6; havoc 0)
For petros and petra to be used as seperate references, there has to be a reason.
There is. The Greek
petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as a man's name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name —- at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get
Petros, which was an already-existing word. (polemikos 7; havoc 0)
P: Reference to any other noun or verb would require a 'that' at a minimum.
H: No it doesn't.
Yes it does. Because for all non-Catholic interpretations, all the players (Jesus, Peter's confession, etc.) are specifically accounted for, whereas in your strained example, there is some implied object referenced by "this". There is no implied object in Mt 16:16-19 (unless you want to make one up just for the occasion ;-). Let's see, where are we? Oh yeah. (polemikos 8; havoc 0)
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.
The "kai" argument rests on 2 faulty assumptions: (1) that there is a difference in meaning between the 2 uses of rock whereas it has been shown that there is not, and (2) the presupposition that there is a contrast going on. The use of the presupposition alone is enough to throw out such an analysis. Furthermore, the translation of kai as "but" would be highly unusual. It is translated as "and" about 95% of the time, but is translated as "but" only 0.4% of the time. Clearly the translational factors favor "and". And there is no lexical support for "but", only the doctrinal bias that you cited. While you are wrong on multiple aspects of your analysis, I'll only mark you off 1 point. (polemikos 8; havoc 0)
But your church has said the testimony of peter is the rock of foundation. How do you square the two versions.
Are you making an argument here somewhere? Go back and read my original. The rabbinic expression is completely compatible with Matt 16. Two different covenants. Two different actions of God. Two different peoples. There is no difference that needs to be squared. They are completely compatible and consistent, especially if you believe that "Scripture interprets Scripture".
Or are you trying to bring in the CCC here somewhat surreptitiously? Is "Rock" also a metaphor for Peter's confession of faith? Sure, but that's a symbolic interpretation. In a way the confession prefigures, but does not substitute for, Peter's role in building the church. It is God granting to Peter divine knowledge. But that also means that something extraordinary will now be required of Peter. Read that last sentence again. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Lk 12:48) This simple fisherman now has a church to run, and in the end, he'll be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. Incredible poignancy. (polemikos 9; havoc 0)
P: 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.
H: Not so.
Not so? Not so? Your problem with my argument is the 2 facts I gave? Sheesh. Peter alone was given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and in the OT, the chief steward under the King was the keeper of the keys. Those are gimmees. Your argument suggests that they are not true. I gotta knock a point off for just for sloppiness. (polemikos 10; havoc 0)
Christ opens and no one shuts, shuts and no one opens.
But the Bible doesn't say that, now does it. And the passage you are referring to, Is 22:22, is talking about a steward, not a son of the king. Furthermore, in the whole of the passage, Is 22:15-25, the former steward is deposed, and the new steward is installed. The functions described are administrative, not salvational. The steward is not of the house of David, but represents the house of David. He never ascends to the throne, but represents the king. As a metaphor for the earthly leaders of Judaism/Christianity, the parallels are striking. Sorry, but your attempt to shoe-horn Christ into the passage just doesn't work. (polemikos 11; havoc 0)
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.
There's that faulty Greek again. And you're forgetting (again) that he used Cephas originally. But I won't mark it as a double error this time, it's late. (polemikos 12; havoc 0)
P: Examine the way Matt 16:16-19 is structured.
H: Who cares.
Well, that sums up your attitude nicely. Havoc is on a truth diet. (polemikos 13; havoc 0)
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.
I see several problems with this simplistic approach. First, the early church fathers held Catholic beliefs. Go get Jurgens and read it. You'll be amazed. Second, the early church fathers had to fight heresy. Sloppy belief systems were not allowed. Since the remaining belief system was Catholic, it is a "fundamental" error to say that they weren't. Third, Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against his church? When exactly do you claim that the gates of hell prevailed? For no matter when you think the early church became corrupt, it was the only game in town. And since it hasn't existed for 2,000 years until your "fundamental" flavor came along, then your argument reduces to "Jesus was wrong". No thanks. Along that path madness lies.
Final Score: polemikos 14; havoc 0
Thanks for playing. Now go hit the showers.