John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

www.monergism.com ^ | Unknown | E. A. Costa

[RnMomof7]

Excellent quotes brother

[RnMomof7]

You're right, of course. Chemotherapy is intended to save the patient. The Reformation, by the time it had progressed past its infancy, was intended to kill the patient.

One can not kill what is already dead

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

What the Reformation did was point out the natural state of unsaved men, one that had been hidden under years of "tradition and works"

[RnMomof7]

We don't know that, actually. The "inspired text" is whatever Matthew originally penned. Tradition indicates he wrote it in "Hebrew" (which may mean Aramaic, but certainly doesn't mean Greek).

Well I know that is what the Jehovah Witness believe

From The Wycliffe Bible commentary: Matthew, Pfeiffer, C. F

Composition and Date. The great frequency of citations and allusions to Matthew found in the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others attests its early composition and widespread use.

The literar connections of this Gospel must be considered in its relations to the other Synoptics, and also to the statement of Papias that "Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted as he could" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39). Many have explained Papias’ statement as referring to an Aramaic original from which our Greek Gospel is a translation.

Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation, and the absence of any trace of an Aramaic original casts grave doubts upon this hypothesis. Goodspeed argues at length that it would be contrary to Greek practice to name a Greek translation after the author of an Aramaic original, for Greeks were concerned only with the one who put a work into Greek. As examples he cites the Gospel of Mark (it was not called the Gospel of Peter) and the Greek Old Testament, which was called the Septuagint (Seventy) after its translators, not after its Hebrew authors (E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, pp. 105, 106).

Thus Papias is understood to mean that Matthew recorded (by shorthand?) the discourses of Jesus in Aramaic, and later drew upon these when he composed his Greek Gospel. Though it is surely possible that Mark was written first, and may have been available to Matthew, there was no slavish use of this shorter Gospel by Matthew, and many have argued for the complete independence of the two books.

New Bible commentary, Matthew, Carson, D. A.

Authorship and date

Early Christian tradition unanimously attributed this gospel to the authorship of Matthew the apostle, the former tax-collector of Capernaum, whose call it records in 9:9 (Mark and Luke call him Levi). There was also a persistent tradition that it was written originally not in Greek but in Hebrew or Aramaic. Both of these traditions are doubted by most modern scholars.

The Greek of the gospel as we know it does not read like ‘translation Greek’, and the close literary relationship of Matthew with the (Greek) gospels of Mark and Luke makes its origin in any other language unlikely. It is quite possible that Christians in the first few centuries ad were familiar with a Hebrew or Aramaic work which was traditionally associated with Matthew, but unlikely that it was our gospel. Papias, the earliest writer to mention Matthew’s writing, attributes to him a compilation of ‘sayings’ in Hebrew or Aramaic, and some believe that he was referring not to the gospel we know but to one of its sources (perhaps the source ‘Q’ which many believe was used by the authors of Matthew and Luke; see the relevant section in ‘Reading the gospels’). But Papias’ statement is too brief to be clear, and its original context is unknown.

If it is improbable that Matthew’s gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, can we take the other aspect of early tradition, the identity of the author as Matthew the apostle, any more seriously? Or does Papias’ statement suggest that this tradition arose in connection with a document other than our gospel? We cannot be sure, but the writers of the early Christian centuries offer us no other candidate for authorship, and a tradition which is both early and unanimous should not be simply assumed to be false unless the nature of the book itself makes it clearly inappropriate.

The Bible knowledge commentary, Walvoord, J. F.

The Original Language of the First Gospel.

While all the extant manuscripts of the First Gospel are in Greek, some suggest that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, similar to Hebrew. Five individuals stated, in effect, that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and that translations followed in Greek: Papias (A.D. 80-155), Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202), Origen (A.D. 185-254), Eusebius (fourth century A.D.), and Jerome (sixth century A.D.).

However, they may have been referring to a writing by Matthew other than his Gospel account. Papias, for example, said Matthew compiled the sayings (logia) of Jesus. Those "sayings" might have been a second, shorter account of the Lord’s words, written in Aramaic and sent to a group of Jews for whom it would have been most meaningful. That writing was later lost, for no such version exists today.

The First Gospel, however, was probably penned by Matthew in Greek and has survived until today. Matthew’s logia did not survive, but his Gospel did. This was because the latter, part of the biblical canon and thus God’s Word, was inspired and preserved by the Spirit of God.

Matthew, J. W. McGarvey, p8

2. The Language

There has been much difference of opinion among scholars as to whether Matthew originally wrote his narrative in Greek, or in the Hebrew dialect of his age. The most satisfactory statement of the evidence pro and on accessible to the general reader may be found in Smith's Bible Dictionary, Art. MATTHEW, gospel. or. The essential facts in the case are the following: All of the ancient writers, whose extant writings allude to the question, represent Matthew as having written a narrative in Hebrew; but not one of them claims to have seen it except Jerome, and he subsequently expresses doubt as to whether the book which he saw under this name was the genuine Matthew. If a genuine Hebrew narrative at anytime existed, it perished with the age which gave it birth. All of the writers just named were familiar with the Greek Matthew; and none of them speak of it as a translation. A large majority of the modern writers regard the Greek as the original, and it is a singular confirmation of the correctness of this opinion that Alford, who, in the first edition of his commentary, took ground in favor of a Hebrew original, in the later editions acknowledges that he has been constrained to abandon that position. God has preserved the greek text of Matthew, not a fragment of any of his writings in "hebrew" remains Gospel or notes.

We can be sure that the Holy Spirit preserves the word of God as HE so desires. That which God ordained remained, THE INSPIRED TEXT .

[conservonator]

Indubitably. My point in quoting Augustine, though, is to show that his interpretation (as well as the other church fathers, I might add) of the Matthew 16 text is completely foreign to the preconceived theology that the Modern Roman Catholic church has imported into it with such things as Roman bishops' universal jurisdiction over the Church, Roman bishops as exclusive successors of Peter, infallibility, etc.

I'm not seeing where the concept of succession, inerrant teaching and authority are foreign concepts in either scripture or the writings of the fathers. Clearly, succession is evidenced in scripture, as is the granting of authority and a promise of inerrant teaching authority. Each of the important See's trace their roots to a particular apostle. Keep in mind that it is the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, not a father or a layman that has the authority to make such decisions.

The office of the pope, like the Church, is found in scripture as evidenced by Peters particular commission, the exact nature and extent of that authority has evolved over the life of the Church and, as we will see, will continue to evolve because it is an office created by Christ Himself for His purpose and while He is unchanging, we are not, it is our understanding of its nature and authority that grows, not the office, it is what it is, and we mere men have no authority to dissolve that which He ordained, either the office of the pope or the one Church.

[HarleyD]

Just so there is no mistake I would agree with you Dr. E. I would like to know which parts of the Westminster Confession Jude finds to be "poisonous" contrasting those doctrines to the appropriate Catholic doctrines that is "lamented" as lost.

[RnMomof7]

The office of the pope, like the Church, is found in scripture as evidenced by Peters particular commission, the exact nature and extent of that authority has evolved over the life of the Church

You guys need to get on the same page.

annalex just wrote

" It is true that St. Peter did not preside over that council. No one claims he was Pope at that time. No one claims that the word "Pope" was in use that early either.

There is no contemporary record of Peter in Rome at all . Peter say the "rock" the foundation" as Christ himself and He taught not a "special " priesthood, but the Priesthood of the believer

1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

[RnMomof7]

Sorry cite from this post

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1559536/posts?page=141#141

[conservonator]

The office of the pope is not a word or limited to a person, it is an office with authority, first held by Peter, created by Christ. annalex wrote nothing that contradicts this, despite your attempted obfuscation. The office is the office, the authority is the authority, how an individual pope understands either has no effect on the office itself any more than a Buddhists denial of the Gospel renders the Gospel a fallacy.

As to your personal interpretation of scripture, I'm uninterested.

[Diamond]

An Aramaic/Syriac textual tradition of Matthew still exists, called the Peshitta. (Whether it's based on an Aramaic original, or the Aramaic original, is not clear.)

...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 leaast in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.

link

Cordially,

[RnMomof7]

The office of the pope is not a word or limited to a person, it is an office with authority, first held by Peter, created by Christ. annalex wrote nothing that contradicts this, despite your attempted obfuscation. The office is the office, the authority is the authority, how an individual pope understands either has no effect on the office itself any more than a Buddhists denial of the Gospel renders the Gospel a fallacy.

He said it is not in the bible, it was not a position that was taught in the early church nor is it one that Peter thought he held.

Peter is described as one of the leaders not THE leader. There is not one wit of contemporary evidence that he ever held the position or believed he did , or that he was considered the head of the church.

[RnMomof7]

You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church.

And indeed the word of God shows that Peter was movable in the days following.

Peter a man chosen of God was a holy and humble man, he would be embarrassed at what has become of his name in tradition

[AlbionGirl]

And, +Peter seems fairly weak as compared to +James or +Paul. +James organized and presided over the first Council, right? If that is so, that seems to me to be very, very significant. The feel of Scripture is that +Peter took a decidedly second place to +James. +Paul, on the other hand, seems +James's equal in every regard. What was +James's view of ministering to Gentiles, is that what the Council of Jerusalem was convened to review and decide upon?

[RnMomof7]

And, +Peter seems fairly weak as compared to +James or +Paul. +James organized and presided over the first Council, right?

Correct

If that is so, that seems to me to be very, very significant.

Also consider the words of Paul in Galations

it was tradition to address the leaders in order of importance, look how he listed them

Gal 2:7 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 (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 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.

Peter called the writings of Paul SCRIPTURE. He acknowledged that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

If Peter had gone to Rome it would have been in disobedience to the mission given him by God

The feel of Scripture is that +Peter took a decidedly second place to +James. +Paul, on the other hand, seems +James's equal in every regard.

I have seen the argument given that if there was a "pope" it was James. But I believe that Paul indicates a joint leadership between James and Peter and John.

What was +James's view of ministering to Gentiles, is that what the Council of Jerusalem was convened to review and decide upon?

I will refer you to the book of Galations for insight into the reason for that council

The " Christian Jews wanted the converted Gentiles to become observant keepers of the law, they had an incomplete understanding of being saved by faith not law keeping

The problem was that Peter in order to keep peace separated himself from the gentiles in this thus seeming to accept the need to keep the Jewish laws. Peter himself had referred to his actions as illegal, at least as far as the Jewish interpretation and application of the Old Testament laws of ceremonial cleanness were concerned ( Read Acts10- 11) Remember that at first Peter refused to eat anything "unclean " with the gentiles God gave him a vision to correct the error that could cause a real problem between the jewish and Gentile Christians. he then ate with Cornelius. Some Judean Christians were teaching gentile Christians in Antioch that they had to be circumcised or else they could not be saved, and there was anger with Peter ( Acts 15:1) Paul confronted Peter on this publicly ( something no one would do with an infallible Pope). That was the cause of that first church council

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Gal 2:15 We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

This was a turning point for the new church.The scripture is clear the authority there was James .

James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave the decision, not Peter

Acts 15:18-21 "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.4 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

I would suggest a reading of Acts 15 and then a read of the letter to the Galations to read Pauls exposition on how one can be led astray to believing a salvation of works and not grace

[conservonator]

Like I said, the authoritative position of pope is evident from scripture in the keys and the unique commission. How each pope, including the first pope, exercised the authority of the office has no bearing on the existence or legitimacy of the office.

[annalex]

Of course it is claimed that Peter was the pope from the time the "keys" were given to him.

Peter was surely chosen by Christ as the first pope at the interchange in Matthew 16:18-19, but the promise of the keys is in the future at that point. Certainly there was no conclave to designate St. Peter pope. Also, the congruence between the see of Rome and papacy has not been determined at that time, so while one may say that St. Peter was pope certainly by the time resurrected Christ charged him with His sheep in the spiritual sense, he did not become bishop of Rome till much later.

It is clear from the Acts that St. Peter was a figure exercising leadership and authority even if the Jerusalem council was presided by the local bishop, St. James. St. Peter also refers to his office as something coming from Christ and that he intends to perpetuate in 2 Peter 1-2.

As to the rest of your doubts regarding Peter as pope, I refer you to a few very clearly written articles.

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter and the Papacy

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.

[...]

evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

Was Peter in Rome?

I was, however wrong to say that St. Mark was martyred in Rome. I was thinking of St. Paul. Mark was martyred in Alexandria. If you are interested in the relationship between St. Peter and St. Mark, (whom St,. Pater called his "son", although possibly he meant godson), see St. Mark

[annalex]

All you did is speculate how a broken telephone game between various semitic languages and Koine Greek can be played to "reconstruct" the "original inspired" Koine Greek. The Koine Greek however, is available to us, and it does not support your fantasies:

"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

No, Sir, "petros" is masculine form of "petra". Nothing more or, with the pun intended, nothing less. Since when a masculine form of a noun indicates a different, and lesser, meaning?

[annalex]

Thank you for setting them straight in my absence.

[conservonator]

Thank you for setting them straight in my absence.

:)

[RnMomof7]

Name the date that Peter was first referred to as Pope in any church writings?

[RnMomof7]

Matt 16:23 "But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"

So which is it Rock or Satan?

Not ONE apostle or early father ever even hinted that Jesus made Peter the head of the church.. Peter never claimed it for himself. Such silence is deafening. The first person to propose this was a Bishop of Rome in the 4th century. Over 300 years after Christ