Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Therefore, to answer this question we must be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Catechism has a very succinct presentation on the formation of the Gospels.

The foundational premise is that "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He live among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up."

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form. Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote "in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." Therefore to suggest that the third century Church "wrote" the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to "create" Jesus, is without foundation.

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the 12 Apostles. We must keep in mind that the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his though and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with John Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origin (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80. St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Colossians 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220), and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel was written about 70-80.

St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.

Whether the actual saint wrote word-for-word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts — whole and entire — are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted, "Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the Sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry.

Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.

Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identify of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired, and as truly the Word of God.

Saunders, Rev. William. "Who Really Wrote the Gospels?" Arlington Catholic Herald.

Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.

I thought we were debating past each other and now I'm sure of it. You are stuck on the single issue of whether it was possible that the manuscript could have started in another language. I am arguing from the standpoint that saying it "may have been" or that "it was with x degree of certainty" Does not intuit into fact or existance the original manuscript for our parusal. The basis of my argument is to say that while it may be convenient to some to say that it is possible, their reason for doing so is largely to try and introduce into evidence a modern translation in place of a translation that doesn't exist factually whether one ever prior existed or not. The form doesn't beg a prior translation; but, that isn't exactly
a formal dismissal either.

I've drawn on the debate over word use to try and illustrate my position. Many would very much like to replace both Petra and Petros with Kephas. The Result is then to emasculate the meaning of two separate words and render them gender neutral and nearly meaning neutral in order to support a claim that heretofore has been absolutely unsupportable because the language in the greek is so clear. In essence, it's like arguing that the US constitution was written originally in piglatin in order to try and do away with freedom of speach through supplanting a less specific word or phraseology in the prior claimed language to skewer the freedom and allow abridgement of it.

Now, That Peter was not exclusively given the Keys is demonstrable in two ways. Peter was not the one that opened the door to the Gentiles, that was Paul. And Paul did so not only without consulting Peter; but, via a consultation with Christ that took place before Peter or anyone else was ever filled in. This demonstrates Paul using the keys to the kingdom without so much as a "let me lend you these" from Peter. If they were given exclusively to Peter, how then does Paul open the door to the Gentiles?
Now secondly, All the apostles were assigned the judaic office of binding and loosing - judicial interpretation over scriptural doctrine. This happened in Matthew 16:18 and is remarked on elsewhere. So the declaration in Matthew 16:18 is plural indicating the you is the group, not Peter. The only people bothered by this are those trying to raise Pete up on a platform above the others against such warnings by paul to the contrary in Corinthians. It is the error of Unum Sanctum - in Paul's language, Was the Pope crucified, was he divided, Are men saved in the Pope's name. This is an affront to some; but, this is the very thing Paul warned against. One wonders if Paul should not be the next person claimed to be written prior in Aramaic to undo some things he said.. But I'll leave that for another day.

So now I digress and address the point again re Kephas and the question of petros and petra. Petros and petra in the Greek have different meanings. Petros being of different Gender also is a different state of being. Petra throughout the entire NT is always used to denote immovable rock structures. Petros as a word is moveable rock on a smaller scale - as I've remarked before, boulders and rocks that can be lifted by hand - up to and including major moveable slabs. It isn't rocket science to understand the difference being drawn. If I have a lump of steel that weighs 1 pound and call it one thing and I have an 80ton steel hunk that I call another, simply calling it steel removes the differentiation of what it is. You don't take the 1 pound hunk and substitute it for the 80ton upright column when raising a structure the size of the empire state building. Neither do you point at a mountain and say "petros" unless you're an idiot or ignorant of the Greek language. The point made is that Christ points to Peter's testimony of who Christ is as the Bedrock foundation of the Church.. not peter. The church isn't founded on Peter, it is founded on belief in Christ as the Messiah - and that is the testimony of all the apostles including Peter without fail. The church wasn't founded on a rock, it was founded on the spilled blood of God's only son.

Does Kephas fit both by saying it is generic for rock in general, not really. Kephas has a prim root from which it is a direct rip in Chaldee. A one for one meaning as it were and that meaning is translatable to petros; not to petra. In literal sense, all the things petra represents are representable in more proper forms using the aramaic words for Mountain, Cliff, etc. How specific is aramaic? You can go out on the web and see for yourself. There are english to Aramaic translation tools and dictionaries web published that will show you. The Chaldee has forms for Mountain, cliff, etc as well, and more of them. The actual translation of cephas is an interesting one from the chaldee. But to say that an aramaic original had christ stating 'you are rock and upon this rock' is erroneous at best and an irresponsible lie at worst. This is not what was being related. Even the english translation we have is dubious given the difference in the type; but, it is something relented to out of habit from earlier translation. 'you are petros and upon this petra' doesn't literally work for the language either in greek or in english because it isn't what's being said. The words petra and petros are differentiations. I'm not going to by fiatt demand or suggest a change but merely what the language gives us. The word translated "and" is a conjunctive that can also mean a number of other things - among them "but". One has to wonder if it was motive or proper usage that drove the translation. let's look at it with the literal terminology plugged in.
'you are moveable stone and upon this immoveable mountain (,bedrock, cliff,..)' Now let's look at it another way: 'you are moveable stone; but, upon this immoveable mountain..' The underlying meaning isn't lost using the conjunctive and - which is likely why it was agreed to. Using the alternative 'but' punctuates the point and dissallows any mistake in what's being said, just as injecting the word meanings does. Absent the word meanings, a lot of error can be sold and has been. Along with a lot of nonsensical argumentation that could have been saved and a lot of bad will.

Greek doesn't merely have gender changes. Each word is a state of being. Some words are fem. some masculine - just as in German or Japanese. If you change it's gender, it effects the outcome of the meaning. I'm sure you are aware of the consequence of this in Japanese. In earlier times, a simple mistake in gender would be an insult but to the wrong person would also result in a quick parting of the head from the body without so much as a moments notice for one to bid goodbye to the other.

So, finally, the definitions from Strongs:

4073 petra petra, pet'-ra fem. of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.) -rock

4074 petros petros pet'-ros; appar. a prim. word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Comp. 2786

2786 khfas kephas kay-fas' of chald. or. [comp 3710]; the Rock; Cephas (ie. Kepha), a surname of Peter: - Cephas.

3710 - Keph, kafe; from 3721; a hollow rock: - rock.

3721 - kaphaph, kaw-faf' a prim. root; to curve: - bow down (self).

petros, as it has been proffered, was not merely changed from petra to make a name. It is a primitive word unto itself that predates the apostle and the idea of use as a name. The same crowd that argues it was changed also want to argue that the word prior to Jesus time had become interchangeable with the word lithos. I guess the two bits of scholarship don't know when to shut up when raining on one another's parades. But I'm used to this. Whatever is said this moment may be discarded later if it becomes inconvenient to a more important thing - image. LOL.

Well, first of all, to call someone a "piece of rock" in the greek looses something in the translation. The modern equivalent would be "chip off the old block". There is nothing diminishing about it.

Christ named him Kephas/Kepha (hollow rock - translated petros - piece of rock.) To get a petros, it must fracture loose from a petra. Just as to get lithos, it must fracture free from either petra or petros. Lithos would be pebbles - to correct you if I may. Petros is larger than pebbles by quite a bit; but, is still loose rock. And as it must fracture from Petra to become petros - chip off the [old] block - or mountain as it were..

The theological point is that Christ is literally saying, you may be a chip off the block; but, I'm founding my church on the block. This is both instructive and a play on words.. Christ showing humor. The passage doesn't show a grant of authority to a single person. Thee is singular or plural. And given that the use of the keys is demonstrated boldly by Paul in the acts about chapter 9 or 10 if memory serves (it's late), without knowledge or leave from Peter to so do, it cannot then be said that Peter alone was given the keys. Nor can it be said Peter alone was given authority to bind and loose. This authority is given in this chapter and verse, yet the others plainly are stated as having it. It doesn't mean Jesus handed down at different times. When he said Thee, he was speaking to the group, not merely to Peter. The problem is that all the apostles demonstrate use of these two things all through scripture after this event. And it isn't by the leave of Peter. When Paul was commissioned, he had yet to meet Peter. When Paul opened the doors of the kingdom to the Gentiles, he still hadn't met Peter. He was given his authority, office and direction by Christ - not Peter. This is the difference between knowing what you were taught and knowing scripture I'm sorry to say. I don't know who taught you; but, you and scripture are in clear contradiction of one another.

“You are stuck on the single issue of whether it was possible that the manuscript could have started in another language.”

I’m not “stuck” on it; that was the topic of discussion.

“I am arguing from the standpoint that saying it "may have been" or that "it was with x degree of certainty"

Here’s a quote from your first post in this thread, No. 17:

“You should go read Michael Crichton's recent article on junk science. There is not a shred of supportable evidence of any factual kind that supports Matthew having been written originally in anything other than greek. Nor was there a need for it to be written in other than Greek. The claim that it was written in Aramaic arose out of a need to support another claim that has since been surrendered. It also arose out of an ignorance of Chaldee.”

Doesn’t support your version of events.

“Many would very much like to replace both Petra and Petros with Kephas. The Result is then to emasculate the meaning of two separate words and render them gender neutral and nearly meaning neutral in order to support a claim that heretofore has been absolutely unsupportable because the language in the greek is so clear.”

And you are trying to make the gender specificity of Greek the defining issue, when it didn’t exist in the original Aramaic spoken by Our Lord.

“In essence, it's like arguing that the US constitution was written originally in piglatin in order to try and do away with freedom of speach through supplanting a less specific word or phraseology in the prior claimed language to skewer the freedom and allow abridgement of it.”

Didn’t follow the link to the Tim Staples article, eh? Your argument is lying down at the crossroads with a stake through its heart.

Anyway, you have the logic backwards. In English, we have two first person singular pronouns: I and me. They are differentiated grammatically but not semantically. Japanese has a whole slew of them, and they have significant differences. For instance, the “I” in the title of the famous Japanese novel “I am a Cat” is in Japanese “wagahai,” which is used only by royalty and never, never, never by anyone else. Even a using it in a joke—and I’m the only one I ever heard try—is regarded as questionable taste.

That specificity cannot be expressed in English. But what we’re talking about is the reverse of this. We’re talking about going from less specificity to more, as if one were translating the pronoun “I” from English into Japanese. No matter which of the several Japanese pronouns the translator selects—watashi, watakushi, washi, boku, ore, etc.—the constellation of implications inherent in the Japanese pronoun cannot be assigned in reverse to the original "I" used in English.

We can't say, "Oh, it says "washi" so the guy was talking like an old grandfather," or "It says "boku," so the guy was talking like a young boy," or "It says "ore" so the guy was talking like a tough guy." None of those assumptions would be valid.

All we can do is go back to the original and examine it in context.

IOW, the word for rock used in the Greek doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. It must be—it can only be—the original word for rock Our Lord spoke in Aramaic that yields His meaning.

I asked you to support your claim that there are—how many did you say? A dozen?—different words for rock in Aramaic. So far, it seems you haven’t gotten around to that. I’ve only found mention of two—evna and cephas or kephas—and, as the Staples article says, "…just as Greek has a word for 'small stone,' lithos, so does Aramaic. That word is evna. But Jesus did not change Simon's name to Evna, He named him Kephas, which translates as Petros, and means a large rock."

The rest of your anti-papist arguments are equally moribund, so I’ll skip over them.

“Petra throughout the entire NT is always used to denote immovable rock structures. Petros as a word is moveable rock on a smaller scale”

Hmmm. I’m looking at my Word Study Greek-English New Testament, and *all* the listings for “petros” are references to Peter by name. Looks like we don’t have the NT using “petra” for “immovable rock structures” and “petros” for “boulders and rocks that can be lifted by hand.” Looks rather like Staples is right: “Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. So when the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon's name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael, or Louise instead of Louis… Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament… [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, "Matthew," in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] As you pointed out, petra means a 'rock.' It even usually means a 'large rock.' And that's exactly what petros means, too — large rock. It does not mean 'pebble' or 'small stone,' as you've been told. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros.”

“'you are petros and upon this petra' doesn't literally work for the language either in greek or in english because it isn't what's being said.”

What works is what Our Lord actually said: I’m giving you the new name “Rock,” and upon this rock I will build my church.

“The word translated "and" is a conjunctive that can also mean a number of other things - among them "but".

If you’re not going to examine the arguments your correspondents post, you really ought to stop making implications about other peoples’ honesty.

Again from the Staples article: "Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for 'and,' which is 'kai,' the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,' the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.

"Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, 'And,' kai, 'on this rock I will build My Church.' He could've said, 'But,' alla, 'on this rock I will build My Church,' meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn't do that."

“Absent the word meanings, a lot of error can be sold and has been.”

Yes. To you.

“Along with a lot of…bad will.”

I don’t feel any bad will toward you.

Ok, so much to say. Saying maybe and saying definitely so are not one in the same thing. Which you have seen me arguing all through this exchange. What you did in reply to my last post was to throw the entire conversation out the window in favor of how you could color a single post. That is nothing if not decietful. You are arguing on the side of certainty equating to a factual translation existing absent the translation. I am arguing from a standpoint of strong opinion being nice but not conclusive and not therefore a factual substitute for having an actual prior text in front of us for evidentiary value. But you should talk to the Mormons, I'm sure they'd love the case you're trying to make.

And you are trying to make the gender specificity of Greek the defining issue, when it didn’t exist in the original Aramaic spoken by Our Lord.

No, I'm merely stating that Gender specificity is one more thing on the block that differentiates in Greek. The thing that you're couching and trying to dance around is the most obvious brought on by the conversation and the simple fact that petros has it's own meaning aside from petra. The words are different in their specific meaning. It's like having one word Man (that means specifically "male", but generically, human) and another word woman, (that means specifically female, but generically, human) and saying that there is no difference between the words because they both mean Human. This is the stretch that you are making. As a language professional, it is dishonest and decietful.

Furthermore, we have to ask a simple question, why the two words? It is the underlying question that must be answered.

First to say that two words aren't supported in the aramaic, we have to rule that there are no aramaic words for mountain or cliff which are meanings applied to petra in scripture. There are words in Aramaic for mountain, and for cliff. In fact, go here and plug the word mountain into the search and for me it pulls up 14 words. Put in Cliff and it gives 2, that's 16 and we've barely gotten started.

So, we must also look at the references in the NT:

Matt 7:24-25 "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his hous upon a rock (Petra). [25] And the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock(Petra)."

Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Petros and upon this Petra I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail."

Matthew 27:60 "And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

Mark 15:46 "And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock(petra), and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre." -- see matthew 27:60 above.

Luke 6:48 "He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundatin on a rock(petra!); and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock(petra)." -- dug deep (ie bedrock).

Luke 8:6 "And some fell upon a rock(petra); and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away because it lacked moisture."

Luke 8:13 "They on the rock(petra)are they, which, when they hear receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away."

Romans 9:33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock(petra) of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

1 Cor 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ."

1 Peter 2:8 "And a stone of stumbling and a rock(petra) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

Petros has it's own seperate meaning - and not because it's being used as a name. The word predated the usage as a name. Just as every one else here has a name which means something in the language from which it comes. The word doesn't lose meaning or usage just because it is used also for a name elsewhere. If there had been some reason to assume no difference intended, the author could have simply said petros twice. He didn't. Masculinity/femininity arguments are worthless as this is state of being. The sentence structure is modified for the gender of the state of being word used. The sentence structure is gender modified to support the differentiation in use. And, simply put, it would not have been problematic to call Peter by the name Petra, if that had been what was intended. For all the arguing about the appropriatness of using a fem. gender word to name someone, it didn't bother the Apostles a whit to refer to Jesus a masculine gender male as Petra. So one wonders why it is appropriate to call one man petra and not another. Peter is never referred to as petra - only as petros.

One can't say the difference doesnt' exist in Aramaic; because it does. Petra is used to denote mountains, cliffs, seplechres, bedrock, etc and some of those examples are in scripture that I've posted just now. Petros is not used properly to refer to this things. Petros would be a "piece of" a mass, not a mass. If a cliff side fractures and falls to the ground, the loose rock that falls is petros, the cliff itself is petra. One grounded one not. The passage doesn't say 'you are petros and upon this petros' which would be proper. Remember this is a state of being language where love is love is love; but all love isn't the same, thus there are like a bazillion different words meaning love in Greek to differentiate between the kinds of love.

The last point I would make is that Christ spoke at a minimum, three languages. Aramaic, Chaldee, and Greek. Christ had a skilled trade, remember, and the trade language was Greek. This is also the son of God who was filled with the spirit and displayed their gifts. Tongues is one of those gifts - the ability to speak in other languages. So to say that Christ spoke in Aramaic therefore the entire text must have been written in Aramaic is rather absurd. Indeed, one would have to find such telltale signs in every manuscript in the entire NT anytime Christ is quoted in order to sustain such a charge. It is not the case. From a scientific background, I cannot say that the text was not written prior in Aramaic. But I cannot either say that it was because it is somehow intuitive - it is not. The possibility doesn't make it a forgone conclusion. Nor does it produce the original text that it may be scrutinized for clarity.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But neither is presence of evidence, evidence of presence. An axiom learned from long study of Archeology and Egyptology. The point of scientific methodology is to keep people from selling silly notions instead of facts. Such silly notions are things like dilute whiskey is a cureall and perfect spot remover. It allows us to seperate the fanciful from the factual so that we don't have people running off at every notion - like say that Paul was the Greatest of the Apostles and led the others because he alone was chosen as a minister specifically to the Gentiles - the largest group of people on the planet, he was chosen by christ for that office, he was given direct authority to open the doors to the Gentiles, his writings far outweigh in number and impact those of all the others, He had the authority in him to correct Peter when Peter went into error... See how easily such nonsense gets started. All it takes is someone coloring a situation and reading more into it than is there and error is born. It is the goal of science to clarify by searching for facts - the testable and knowable - so that one may say certain things are true beyond a doubt and some things might be true or false but are not proveable either way and that finally some things are utterly false. As Humans we want to act on what is true beyond a doubt, investigate that which is not proven, and abstain from that which is false. So while it is instructive to say that it's possible Bethoven finished his unfinished symphony, it is'nt proper to sit down and finish it and present that as the finished work. While Fermat may have finished and misplaced his full last theorem, it isn't proper to sit down and write out on paper one's opinion of what that might have been and then say it was. It is no more proper to sit down and write something out in Aramaic and pretend it was the original for something that doesn't exist as an original but that became a Greek version. Absent an actual original, the only thing there is - is speculation. Some of that speculation may be good or bad. But it is nonetheless speculation - not fact. testing theory is testing theory - it is not the end result.

The theological point is that Christ is literally saying, you may be a chip off the block; but, I'm founding my church on the block. This is both instructive and a play on words.. Christ showing humor.

If Peter is getting this name in Aramaic as John 1:42 shows he clearly was, how could Christ be punning in Greek when he's naming Peter in Aramaic?

As for the "state of being" argument--you can make it for some words in Greek and not others. Adjectives mean the same whether they get the masculine or feminine or neuter endings. In any case, I think it is a stretch to have Christ saying "Thou art [a little rock] and upon THIS [different big rock] I will build my Church." What's that "This" doing there then? That "this" in Greek is "taute"--it refers to something mentioned right before. You're having Him totally switch ideas in the middle of the sentence just to cling to this rather dubious distinction between petros/petra--when far more natural is to assume Christ meant: "I will call you "Rock", and on this "Rock" I will build my Church." See? Simple.

The passage doesn't show a grant of authority to a single person. Thee is singular or plural....When he said Thee, he was speaking to the group, not merely to Peter.

First of all, "thee" historically, has been a singular pronoun in English. "You" was its plural, only now it has been merged into singular as well. But that's a side issue, because I'm basing this on the Greek. "dwsw soi tas kleidas ths basileias". "Soi" is the 2nd person singular pronoun--if Christ wanted to spread this over all the apostles He would have said "humin"--you plural. In the passage preceding this, Christ says "who do you [humeis] say I am?"--clearly plural. Peter answers "You [Su] are Christ, Son of the Living God." And the rest of the verbs in that passage-to bind, to loose-are singular as well.

the use of the keys is demonstrated boldly by Paul in the acts about chapter 9 or 10 if memory serves (it's late), without knowledge or leave from Peter to so do, it cannot then be said that Peter alone was given the keys.

Sorry...couldn't find the ref. I checked Strong's and the only other use of "key" in the NT is in Luke and Revelations. No mention about Paul or any other apostle getting them.

Nor can it be said Peter alone was given authority to bind and loose.

That's right, the other Apostles had it as well in Matt 18: which, by the way, is clearly plural: you would bind "desete", you would loose "lusete". I find it interesting that this power is given to Peter singly, and then all the apostles collectively--and you'll find this same idea preserved in the close relationship still preserved in the Church between Peter's successor and the bishops via Church councils.

This is the difference between knowing what you were taught and knowing scripture I'm sorry to say. I don't know who taught you; but, you and scripture are in clear contradiction of one another.

LOL...I CERTAINLY didn't pick this stuff up in Catholic school. What if it was just "me and my Bible"--searching the Scriptures. There couldn't be anything wrong with THAT approach could there? ;)

Ah, I see, claim false accusation on the other side then run off and claim victory. LOL. Haven't seen that one before (yes I have). How long did it take you to stitch all that nonsense together? (sorry, borrowing a page from your own book)..

So it lays at this - No Aramaic original has ever been found and may or may not exist or have ever existed. Saying it did, doesn't display the work itself for review. Until an actual original is found, there is no resolution that allows for the changing of the Greek words used. The Greek words are not merely "rock", They are literally or figuratively "a piece of rock", petros, and "a mass of rock", petra. They are distinguishable one from the other. If there were need for it, there is no reason the passage could not read 'you are petros and upon this petros' - it does not read this way.

This is a state of being language where words used are used for a reason. As Limbaugh says, "words mean things". Petros does not equal petra. Again, generically, black widow and brown recluse are understood generically to be spiders just as petros and petra are understood generically to be kinds of rock. But when one says black widow, one does not mean brown recluse. As such if one says petra, one does not mean petros. If one says agapo, one does not mean agapi. You'll note the two words look the same and have the same root but are entirely different in meaning. This is the way Greek works despite attempts to obfuscate. If Christ hadn't specified the use of petra as foundation, and he hadn't used two seperate and specific words, then you might have an argument. But due to the fact that Christ states he is founding upon petra - he is begging the bedrock meaning of petra - not a generic sense of 'rock'. Petros is not bedrock, it isn't foundation. Nor in scripture was it ever used to say such a thing.

Matthew 16:18 is also not the place wherein Peter was named.
It was in John in the first chapter 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. So whether it be Cephas or Kepha(s) (chaldee), both mean "a stone" according to the translators. The word used for some odd reason is petros, not petra. You'll note that for definition's sake, the word is not being used as a name at the moment. Cephas and petra do not mean the same thing. The root of the Aramaic word Cephas is Chaldee - Kepha, which also is not translated petra; but, rather petros. How odd, huh?

You may or may not be starting from your conclusion. But with regard to this particular issue, Rome is. The Greek doesn't support what they're trying to establish. Nor does your statement establish prior existance of an Aramaic text - much less one that removes valid distinctions made in the Greek. As such, the argument is not rebutted. The greek language pre-existed the Roman Catholic Religion and cannot be changed retroactively to suite Rome's wishes. Nor shall it be.

If Peter is getting this name in Aramaic as John 1:42 shows he clearly was, how could Christ be punning in Greek when he's naming Peter in Aramaic?

Who decided it was Aramaic and why. John 1:42 is where Peter got his name, presumeably to help differentiate him from the other Simon in the group. It did not happen in Matthew 16:18. And John specifically relates that cephas as translated is "a stone" or petros. So there's no reason to assume that the passage in Matthew was written in Aramaic. Nor would it be required. Nor would it have had to have been said in Aramaic. A name is a name no matter what language it is written in. Just because I use the name Govu or Gupta, doesn't mean this posting was written in some Hindii language form first.. Nor if I said some french phrase like c'est la vie though I probably just butchered it not knowing french.

As for the "state of being" argument--you can make it for some words in Greek and not others. Adjectives mean the same whether they get the masculine or feminine or neuter endings.

How does that have any bearing whatsoever on this conversation? It is a state of being language. Agapao, Agapo, agapi,.. all mean love of one kind or another. Yet one is appropriate to one occasion while inappropriate for another. Pick a noun or verb and you have a state of being. And adjective merely enhances the state - it does not change it. Petros and petra are thusly not identical merely because they share a common root any more than agapao, agapi or agapo are the same because they do. It is an argument made from either ignorance or willful blindness.

In any case, I think it is a stretch to have Christ saying "Thou art [a little rock] and upon THIS [different big rock] I will build my Church." What's that "This" doing there then?

It isn't a stretch. We already know that the foundation of anyone's christian walk is their belief and confession of Christ as redeemer. That is my foundation as it is that of any other christian. Christ is saying, I named you 'a stone'; but, I'm building my church [of me] on the bedrock foundation of the statement you just made. That's the longhand. And it is no stretch. It's mearly playing with the words. It's the same thing anyone here would do in any given conversation - take a circumstance and use it whimsically, illustratively, etc. It is only a stretch to you IMO because it neuters something you were taught and led to believe. This is why we're supposed to stick to facts and read for what's there rather than what we would like to be there. If it was there, I'd give it to you, it isn't.

You're having Him totally switch ideas in the middle of the sentence just to cling to this rather dubious distinction between petros/petra--when far more natural is to assume Christ meant: "I will call you "Rock", and on this "Rock" I will build my Church." See? Simple.

No, He hasn't stated an idea to switch. He says You are "a stone" - on this "bedrock" (your confession), I will build of me my church. In english, the sentence structure should be You are a stone. [and/but] On this bedrock/foundation I will build of me my church. Petros cannot be used for foundation - that's the point of differentiation. And Christ made that distinction himself when he stated that one must dig down and build on petra (bedrock) for a sure foundation. Petros is loose rock and therefore not a sure foundation. To anyone knowing Greek, the distinction is palpable. Perhaps this is why even the Orthodoxers teach that the foundation pointed to here is Peter's confession, not Peter. In which case any or all of the apostles could have said this. It says nothing of establishing anything on Peter.

I'll have to address the rest later. I'm out of time for now.

Sorry...couldn't find the ref. I checked Strong's and the only other use of "key" in the NT is in Luke and Revelations. No mention about Paul or any other apostle getting them.

The keys are of the kingdom of heaven. They symbolize the act of opening heaven to Israel, then to the Gentiles. Christ opened the door in both cases; but, he did so through Peter to the Israelites and through Paul with the Gentiles. This is the whole point you guys want to make - that Peter started it all. He actually didn't. He started one part of the equation and Paul finished it but only through Christ as Christ himself says that he is the one who opens and no one may shut, and the one who shuts and no one may again open.

You miss, as is a running theme, the forest for the trees. It's the same thing with binding and loosing. It is and was the spiritual position of interpreting doctrine.. not creating doctrine but interpreting it. Any Rabbi of the jewish faith can tell you guys this; but, alas you didn't consult them before redefining it. Alas, as Christ said just prior to the 16:18 statements, beware the leaven of the pharisees and the sadducees.

See above. Binding and loosing does not allow the creation of doctrine from whole cloth. And tho Christ initially warned the Apostles to obey those who sat in the seat of Moses (the civil law), he later warned them prior to the passage at Matthew 16:18 to gaurd against their doctrine. In other words, there is no requirement to follow false doctrine, no matter the office from whence it flows. This isn't the military where you can just say "I was obeying orders" and get off. Having the scriptures and the ability to read them, and given you're supposed to have the mind of christ and the holy spirit that you can understand scripture, if you fail and stand before God, you are the one being judged, not the false teacher. And Christ said that God's words, His testimony from God, will judge in the end, not church doctrine. If doctrine is in error, it is not to be followed. So who decides that? the erroneous teacher spouting it or the people hearing it and comparing it to the message of the apostles. The latter was the charge of Christ and the Apostles over and over again. That also is not so with Rome. See, surface appearances aren't always what they seem, are they.

LOL...I CERTAINLY didn't pick this stuff up in Catholic school. What if it was just "me and my Bible"--searching the Scriptures. There couldn't be anything wrong with THAT approach could there? ;)

Well, see, scripture is kinda funny, it was originally given largely in parables by Christ where our NT is concerned. This served two purposes - to confound the Carnal minded by letting them latch onto the outward metaphor while losing the inner spiritual message. And second, allowing the spiritually minded - those who are actually born again - see through the facade to the truth. Thus some read and understand one thing, and others read and understand something else - just as the pharisees and saducees grumbled and grasped at straws. The spiritually minded then are easily told apart from the carnally minded by their understanding and right division of truth from metaphor. Spirituality is niether carnal piety nor outward appearances. Thus still today you have people offended at the audacity of those claiming to know scripture and what it means when they themselves find it difficult to understand and have been told they can't and should not try lest they find themselves in error for not being spoonfed by someone else saying "trust us - or else".

Things aren't what they always seem. There are many who suit up in the sheep's clothes, intermingle and pretend to be sheep. When they create rules of their own, and change clothes to pretend at being shepherd, they are no less wolves. And the way to tell them apart from the sheep is to know what the Apostles taught and reject anything that doesn't line up with that. Their message is that which God gave them through Christ. The only way one can know what they taught is to read what they put in writing. It's the only thing one can be sure about in the end - if they wrote it or had it written, it's tied directly to them. Any one can say "so and so said thus". The only way to get past charges of charlotanism is to make that sort of hearsay seem important rather than dubious. Brilliant if you're a scam artist. Not so brilliant when someone sees it for what it is. Thus, we stick, as Christians to what the scriptures say - not to what people playing games would like to make them say. Thus, 'And I say to you that you are a stone, and/but, on this the bedrock, I will build of me my church, and the Gates of Hell shall not overcome it.' The bedrock being the confession - on which the church is built of and by Christ. It's all about Christ - not Peter. And that is the importance of the passage and of the chapter and book surrounding it. The stumbling block laid in Sion yet trips those on earth seeking to hide the truth in carnal pursuits - either willfully or through ignorance. Night. God loves ya.

Having the scriptures and the ability to read them, and given you're supposed to have the mind of christ and the holy spirit that you can understand scripture, if you fail and stand before God, you are the one being judged, not the false teacher.

Indeed. For your reference, please consider what one person stated on two different occasions on what it takes becoming a Christian.

Statement #1

"The first step in becoming Christian is to Repent - or admit to the sin in your life and vow to turn from it. The second step is to confess Christ as savior, and that is followed by learning Scripture and Following Christ."

see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023239/posts?page=111#111

so the above is:

1) Repent
2) Confess
3) Learning Scripture and following Christ

Statement #2:

"That's two shot down specifically. The sacraments generally pervert scripture as much in what they cause as in what they get wrong. There is no ritual that I'm aware of mentioned in the entire New testament that is required to be a Christian. There are actions that are required. They are three - You must 1) believe with your heart and confess with your mouth to be born again (Paul specifically states this). 2) Per Jesus in Mark 16:15-18 you must be born again (saved - as paul said) and baptized in the Holy spirit. 3) John 10 and Romans 8 you must follow Christ in the Holy Spirit."

see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/992292/posts?page=253#253

which is:

1) Believe, Confess

2) Born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit

3) Follow Christ in the Holy Spirit.

Given that one has the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit so that one can understand Scripture, and given that Christ and the Holy Spirit cannot err, makes 'ya wonder why the statements do not mesh - they don't agree. They do not have to be worded exactly the same to mean the same things. The above don't even mean the same things.

The requirements for becoming a Christian are clear - but not from the messages above.

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.