Replies

>>If I can't accept Catholic views as to "upon this rock," can I accept what many Protestant writers now accept?<<

You can accept whatever you want to accept. Your entire post and all those you quote is built on fallacy.

First of all, Appealing to the Aramaic language is expressing doubt about what the Holy Spirit chose as the words to use. NOT a good move. The Holy Spirit used the Greek language to record the intent of Jesus words and one can be assured He knew what that intent was.

Second, the words Petros and petra are NOT simply the masculine and feminine forms of the same idea. They are distinctly different in that one is a small rock as in one can move the other is an unmovable large rock as in a cliff. Putting a movable rock as the base of the "church" would be stupid rather than the unmovable and unwavering Rock which is God who says He knows of no other.

Third, it would be the ONLY reference to any man being referred to as the rock other than God compared to multiple verses referring to God being the Rock.

Fourth, the binding and loosing does NOT mean that the apostles were to make those determinations without regard to what had been bound and loosed in heaven. The Greek reads "will have been bound" and "will have been loosed". The word literally means "I am" as in already existed.

Fifth. what is this obsession Catholics have with thinking that just because some Protestant or even a group of Protestants believes something or says something it's going magically be something that makes us believe it? It's like lemmings!

You can accept whatever you want to accept.

I think those scholars have a better insight than some bush leaguer who shows up on the Internet claiming to know more. And, in their case, you can't accuse them of Catholic bias. Sorta really messes up your argument doesn't it?

Appealing to the Aramaic language is expressing doubt about what the Holy Spirit chose as the words to use. NOT a good move.

No, it's simply to recognize the obvious: that Jesus said Simon would be called "Cephas" and it's well-accepted by those who understand the languages of the day that the word derives from the Aramaic.

The Holy Spirit used the Greek language to record the intent of Jesus words and one can be assured He knew what that intent was.

One can be assured that the Holy Spirit knew. Just as one can have grave doubts YOU know what the Holy Spirit meant, because you're a bush-leaguer when it comes to the original languages..

What the Holy Spirit meant and what You think the HS meant are very much two different things. Or are you some infallible oracle that has the only direct line to the mind of God on this topic? You sure act like it.

They are distinctly different

Actually, not necessarily. "Petros" can mean rock. Thayer's Greek Lexicon confirms this:

See, right there. "Petros" (in Greek) means: "a stone, a rock, a ledge or a cliff."

So, yeah, even your Greek "small stone" versus "large rock" bit doesn't hold up well. "Petros" can mean "rock" as well.

Third, it would be the ONLY reference to any man being referred to as the rock other than God . .

Wrong. Abraham is referred to as "the rock" as well. Is. 51:1-2.

[W]what is this obsession Catholics have with thinking that just because some Protestant or even a group of Protestants believes something or says something it's going magically be something that makes us believe it?

If you read through their analyses, it's not just some small group. Several say "Peter is the rock" commands a wide acceptance among a host of Bible scholars.

You may not accept that, because you are determined not to accept it under any circumstance. But what these scholars do is refute any argument you make that "upon this rock" referring to Peter is just some twisted, Catholic thing. No, it's not, even if you resist accepting that view.

Fifth. what is this obsession Catholics have with thinking that just because some Protestant or even a group of Protestants believes something or says something it's going magically be something that makes us believe it? It's like lemmings!

It's like Catholics. THey just can't wrap their minds about thinking for your self, and not group think. Being led by the Holy Spirit instead of being led by a group of men.

They think *Prots* are like them because that's all they've ever known.