Replies

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.

Dude, Thayer is simply using the base of the word. The Holy Spirit used two distinct forms of the word. He used Petros and petra.

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

First off, I need to see the site you lifted that screen print off. It's not the Thayer's I can find.

Second, re-read all we have posted on the subject. Not one of us has said it doesn't mean rock. What we have said is that Petros is a MOVABLE rock. Petra is NOT movable rock.

>>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.<<

Obviously you haven't been reading our posts on the subject. At least I hope that's the reason you post that comment.