In the interest of following up, I checked my Liddell-Scott this morning and Iscool is right. There was a distinction between petros "stone" and petra "rock, mass of rock"--at least in Attic Greek of the 4th century B.C. Whether that distinction held in the 1st century NT Greek, I do not know.
Nevertheless, I think the argument still stands that Christ did not have this distinction in mind when he made this statement--1) because he gave the name in Aramaic not Greek, which is proved by John 1:42, and 2) because the Greek of Matt 16 has the word "taute" = "same" = "Thou art Rock, and upon this SAME rock, I shall build my Church"
100 posted on 06/09/2006 6:34:37 AM MDT by Claud
Did the Ru'ach HaKodesh breath the Word of G-d in Koine Greek or in Aramaic ? What a gift : The ability to read the mind of G-d.
b'shem Y'shua
I do not know. But I *do* know that He breathed *this name for Peter* in Aramaic, which is all that's at issue here. This is proved by John 1:42 which says that Petros is a translation of Cephas and not the other way around. This argument is not built on some historical theory, but on the infallible word of God.
" Did the Ru'ach HaKodesh breath the Word of G-d in Koine Greek or in Aramaic ?"
Depends on who he was talking to. My bet is that its usually in Greek, but then again, Latin might have a claim. Many Protestants seem to think it was in the King's Englaish, but I doubt that.