The_Rock_Photo.jpg)
And can you guess what he's cooking?
Please do not post a bunch of links to refute or to say something. No one will read them. This thread is for discussion for discourse and that discussion and discourse can become heated at times. If any poster can not stand the heat of open discussion then stay on the caucus, prayer or devotional threads. No personal attacks and do not make the topic of a response personal that way the religious monitor will not have to slap any hands.
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.” When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.” Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some. Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
James Joyce said it was just a pun. You know, “Peter”/”rock”.
And can you guess what he's cooking?
Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence ( "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18) could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
Hence, the rock is Peter.
Although Our Lord, I'm certain, spoke and understood Aramaic.....it was not His language. He spoke Hebrew....and He spoke it with a Galilean accent.
The fact that a major religion of this world lives and dies on the myth that Our Lord's main language was Aramaic.....is simply laughable.
In the first line, the fifth word should be sigma-upsilon, not omicron-upsilon.
In the next line, after the sixth word (kai) the next word should be pylai (pi-upsilon-lambda-alpha-iota). Two words later, immediately after the Greek word meaning "of Hades" it should just have the negative ou (omicron-upsilon), not kai pyou. Pyou doesn't make any sense here and is clearly a running together of the first syllable of pylai with ou. Gremlins.
In 16:19, the UBS edition has no kai at the start, and has kleidas instead of kleis a few words later, but perhaps that represents different manuscript readings (since kleis is sometimes found as a contraction of kleidas).
The Religion Moderator doesn't say that! LOL!
Guidelines for Religion Forum threads
But then, maybe you are the Religion Moderator. LOL!
Jesus, of course, did not name Simon, “Peter” at all. “Peter” is a translation of Simon’s new name, “Cephas.” Whatever distinction between Petros and Petra the Protestant apologists’ imagination would invent is an artifact of translation.
There are instance in Attick Greek where poets used “Petra” as a “mother lode”, and “Petros” as the child, but there is no such distinction in Koine (biblical) Greek. Throughout the Greek bible, including the Greek versions of the Old Testament, “Petra” is the word used for “rock,” and “lithos” for “a stone.” Matthew used “Petros” instead of “Petra” as a means of giving Cephas a masculine first name, since “Petra” is a feminine name.
This is yet another case where Protestant apologists state, “it means A, so it cannot mean B.” This is false. Clearly Peter is Cephas. But faith in Christ, as all those verses do properly attest is also Cephas. Peter became the living embodiment of faith. I’ve seen Protestants cite Church Fathers as if they were providing proof that the Rock was faith in Christ, and therefore not Peter, whereas those authors were frequently making the point that to know the truth about Jesus, one must look to the teaching of the Church, of which Peter was the regent.
Possibly the wrong premise. I prefer the question, 'WHAT is the Rock?'
To answer that question requires only a minimum of words and a much clearer path of logic.