Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OLD REGGIE
Produce the Aramaic.

Are you denying that in Galatians Paul calls Peter Cephas four times in Greek or that kepha is an aramaic word or that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I'm not sure what exactly what you're requesting...

As I am at work at the moment, I provide the following for your consideration:

"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."

"The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old."

In light of Isaiah 22:22, as this book of the Old Testament has sometimes been called the 5th Gospel because of its relevance to Christ and the number of times that He refers to it, are you suggesting that Jesus is handing everyone who professes Christ as Lord the authority to "rule" over the inhabitants?
79 posted on 01/21/2005 11:54:13 AM PST by mike182d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: mike182d
Are you denying that in Galatians Paul calls Peter Cephas four times in Greek or that kepha is an aramaic word or that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I'm not sure what exactly what you're requesting...

I'm not requesting anything. I am making the bold, flat statement that Jesus is the Rock of His Church.

BTW, I would think it customary to cite your source when you cut and paste from Catholic Answers and the like.

How many years without a Pope would have to pass before you would accept that the "unbroken" line was broken?

143 posted on 01/22/2005 9:31:00 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson