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? ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.