[Sir Gawain]

ping

[BibChr]

Of course he wasn't. What a silly idea!

...no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ
1 Corinthians 3:11

Dan
What Is Biblical Christianity?

[DSHambone]

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size

Funny that a man speaking Herbrew or Aramaic would suddenly throw in a Greek word. As Arsenio would say, "Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!???"

[Campion]

The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning "a pebble." The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra

This argument is totally destroyed, nuked, flattened, and vaporized in Butler, Hess, and Dahlgren's Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.

Briefly:

1. petros was used to mean "little pebble" in classical Greek poetry, not in the Koine of the NT. The whole argument falls to pieces just on that basis, but they don't stop there.
2. Jesus could not have said "you are petra and upon this petra I will build my Church" even if he had wanted to because "petra" has feminine gender and cannot be used as a man's given name. It would be like naming a boy "Roberta" or "Julia". To get a man's name, you have to switch to a masculine declension, hence, "Petros".
3. There's really no point in renaming Simon with anything resembling "rock" unless "rock" has something to do with Simon personally. The rest of the verse clearly grants special authority to Simon personally; it wasn't to Simon Peter's confession that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose, nor does it make any sense whatsoever for Jesus to say, "You, Simon, are but a little pebble (but I'm a big rock), and to you I give the keys of heaven ..."
4. This tortured exegesis totally ignores the Biblical significance of the keys. The passage is a reference to Isaiah 22:22, where the "keys" are viewed as an emblem of the power granted to the royal vizier, the king's right hand man under the Davidic monarchy.
5. Jesus would have been speaking to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. There is even tradition that Matthew's Gospel was written in "Hebrew". That may mean Hebrew, or may mean Aramaic, but in neither language is the alleged "petros/petra" play on words exist. In Aramaic, it's "kepha/kepha". And we know from the Bible that Peter was referred to as "kepha" in Aramaic, because that's where "Cephas" comes from.

[gdani]

And, if he was, did we smell what he was cookin'?

[SubMareener]

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size.

Ah! Duh! I thought Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. What Aramaic word did he use?

[Coleus]

NO, Prudential Is!! :)

[don-o]

This'un will go to 500 replies and will plow the same ground, repeat the same arguments, flame the same flames, ignore the same evidence as a hundred other religious threads.

QUESTION: Has any Freeper ever changed his mind or even thought much about points made by opposing views on the religious threads? Be honest, and give examples.

Or do we automatically load the apologetic ammo and fire?

[Gophack]

This is a well-thought out argument against the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of Matthew and the Primacy of Peter. However, I would like to submit the following to counter your assertion that Peter is NOT the rock upon which Christ built his church:

First, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, the language Jesus used. In Aramaic, Jesus said in Matthew 16:18

'aph 'ena' 'amar-na' lak da'(n)t-(h)uw ke'pha'
and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas

we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy
and upon this rock I will build her namely my church

Note that the word for Peter, ke'pha', is the same word for rock. The words are equated: Peter is the rock.

The core of the meaning appears to rest in the two words for a "rock." If Matthew recorded that Christ used the same word both for (1) the proper name of Peter and (2) the foundation on which Christ says he will build the church, then an interpretation follows that the foundation of the church is Peter.

Karl Keating explains further:

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

God bless.

[The_Reader_David]

The majority of patristic commentary on this passage shows the most early Christians regarded Peter's confession as the rock on which the Church would be built.

If it does not die quickly, this thread will be very dull and predictable. Adherents of the papal throne of Rome will argue vociferously, citing many quotes from the minority of the fathers who held the view that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built to support their ecclesiology. Protestants and any Orthodox who actually hang around (I certainly don't plan to) will argue the contrary position, citing other passages of scripture (for the protestants) or (for the Orthodox) scripture, quotations from the fathers who held the view that his confession was the rock, and the acta of the Holy Ecumenical Councils which attribute the primacy of honor shown the Bishop of Rome to the fact that Rome was the imperial capital.

As I say, it will be very dull and very predictable.

[la$tminutepardon]

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God

There's your Rock.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Yes he was, it was to him that Christ gave stewardship of the apostles and the disciples. Peter was given the elevated spot as the his principle leader on earth once he left. However, I do understand the disagreement that protestants have with this statement. But as a Roman Catholic, Peter was given stewardship over this mission, of course, we all know that Jesus watched Peter and his hand can be seen in the actions of the early church (Paul). But it is a tricky and sticky issue. Catholics and Protestants are best agreeing to disagree.

[Arthur McGowan]

Have you read Post #6 yet?

[CCWoody]

Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

The more I read this verse, the more I think that the key to understanding what Jesus meant by "upon this rock" can be found in verse 17:

Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

John 6:44-45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God."

[CometBaby]

The ONLY reason you are making an issue of this is because .. IF Peter WAS the rock .. it would prove that he was the founder of the Catholic Church. Since Peter was the FIRST Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence, it is imperative that he be renounced.

Now I am not a religious person .. so it doesn't make any difference to me WHAT you want to believe. I merely point this out.. so that others will see it as more of the anti-Catholic religious propoganda I seem to see a lot of around here.

[Fiddlstix]

Ping J

[Prodigal Daughter]

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra, Peter's namesake) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

4074 Peter 161, stone 1; 162
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

4073 petra
1) a rock, cliff or ledge
1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
1b) a rock, a large stone
1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

[A CA Guy]

He wasn't the sponge!

[CyberAnt]

NO! The rock is "revealed knowledge". Before Jesus, GOD could only speak to us through Prophets, Priests or Kings, but now, GOD speaks to us through His SON.

[Arthur McGowan]

Have you read Post #6 yet? Do you have any response to each of Campion's points?