Posted on 05/20/2008 10:10:12 AM PDT by NYer
Very true, but the Scripture uses his Jewish name until the laying on of hands - then, it refers to him as Paul. Like I said, it isn’t a name change, but it highlights his mission to the Gentiles.
You’re confusing Aramaic and Greek, methinks. Aramaic has one word for rock - “Kepha,” as the article states. The Greek language is one with gender (much like modern day Romance languages) and the Greek word for Rock is Petra - a feminine ending. Thus, in Greek manuscripts, it is changed to Petros to refer to Simon - a masculine ending. Otherwise, we’d have Jesus calling Peter a little girl!
Don't understand the denomination or traditions one little bit.
But I still love them all.
You're so very kind. Thank you for a post that makes me feel the way that I always felt in Catholic grade school in the 60's. Our Nun-Teachers always tried to instill into us that we were very special and that we had a high standard of behaviour to uphold. The "glow" I feel from your post will make it easier for me today to make my Nuns proud of me. :)
Thanks
MarineBrat (On a mission to make my Nuns proud of me today)
Actually, that distinction is in the Greek language. the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek.cf.
Jesus and the Apostles were all Jews. They spoke in Aramaic. In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered asKephas in its Hellenistic form).
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
Thank you for your kind post. You will find most, if not all the answers to your questions here. Enjoy!
You may be confusing Aramaic with Greek.
In Greek, “petros” means “small pebble”, while “petra” means “large boulder”. Keep in mind also that “petros” is a masculine word, while “petra” is feminine. So, in Greek, Peter, being a man, would have to be referred to by the masculine word, while the rock upon which the Church was built could be referred to by the feminine.
However, the words were spoken by Christ in Aramaic, so the same word “kepha”, meaning “rock” was used both times.
This is just one more reason why I should always check for prior posts before I post a response. :^)
Ditto from me, non-Catholic.
And I am a big fan of Pope Benedict XVI. I also think the Humanae Vitae is one of the greatest literary works of recent history. Papal Infallibility holds, of course, that Humanae Vitae is perfect; but even for me, I can see it is clearly Divine.
“Papal Infallibility holds, of course, that Humanae Vitae is perfect...”
Actually, it is questionable whether Humanae Vitae itself is a document that enjoys infallibility. Pope Paul VI specifically refused to invoke infallibility when he promulgated it. Nonetheless, the teaching against artificial contraception is an infallible part of the ordinary Magisterium, in that it has been universally taught by the Church from the first or second century.
However, even if Pope Paul VI had promulgated Humanae Vitae as infallible, that wouldn't have meant that the document would have been perfect or even without error. It merely would have meant that the teaching of the doctrine on artificial contraception would have been infallible, even if the means used - the document itself - had been flawed.
sitetest
The status of Humanae Vitae as “infallible” is not that clear. It certainly is what you might call “operative opinion” and authoritative folks have said that the basic ideas should be considered to be infallible, But it’s not a slam dunk.
Thanks.
One of my favorite quotes:
“Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.”
Our New Testament Greek course has not yet introduced vocabulary related to prostitution. We have sentences like, “I see the house of a brother and the son of an apostle.”
There’s a lot of facts in that post. Some of them true!
Other threads are appropriate for aggressive disagreement. The way I understand it “Ecumenic” threads are for exposition and explanation. Debate and insult detract from the purpose. LDS explicators could do “Ecumenic” threads without bringing out the thin skinned among us, too, and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Missionary Baptists and Buddhists and even Episcopalians. I like the category. We can actually explain our viewpoints to each other without having to leap up and frantically deny and call names at any suggestion that one has a bit of a different perspective.
One word for large rock is Petra not the Petros Jesus referred to Peter as.
Petra is feminine. I think Christ was wise enough to make Petra into Petros, for a man.
Goodness gracious, dear! What a tizzy! And it’s only Tuesday, too. May we expect a full-fledged Conniption by Friday?
The rules for an Ecumenic thread are much more lax than your post seems to state. They permit statements about your beliefs or questions about the beliefs of others.
:)
Good afternoon Tax-Chick....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.