Hmmmm. But this scripture was written in GREEK not ARAMAIC and Petra(rock) and PETROS(small stone) are 2 different words. Conjecture about a fictitious Aramaic version is just thatTo which I answered:
Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).are you clear on why they are NOT two different words? Are you?
are you clear on why they are NOT two different words? Are you?
Well, I certainly understand why you want this to be true and for arguments sake, lets say that it is.
How is it that in the first 600 years of the early church, only a small minority see Peter as the rock, and no one in this small minority sees it in terms of the modern papal sense?
Maybe you could explain how the entire charter and headship of the Roman church can be based on one disputed verse (matt 16:18) and why the parrallel verses in Mark and Luke do not think it important enough to include this information?
How could it possibly be that in the entire corpus of the New Testament, there is not one other mention of Peter being the rock, when there are multiple citations of Jesus being the Rock even from Peter's own writtern words?
bookmark