It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Originally posted by lapi7
Good point Vallhall,
Perhaps that was wrong to do. I betrayed myself with my own intolerance!
Suffice it to say that I still believe that many Christians might want to re-evaluate their style and motives in witnessing!
The catholic church wasnt built on Peter. The pagan catholic church was built on the roman god Jupiter. That is why the statue of Jupiter , with the sun over its head, sits in st peters basillica. That is why the popes throne also sits there...with the huge sunburst behind it. Take a look at the link in the babyon-rome thread for the pictures.
As 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).
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
"I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek."
Originally posted by Jehosephat
do you really honestly beleve that the catholic church is the best source to prove that Peter was not the first pope? YOu say your are studing for a classics minor, yet all you do is parrot Catholic dogma which even an atheist can do now with the aid of the internet.
The bset way to analyis scripture is not ask a scholar for his opinion, but to use other parts of scripture to see if it is supported. Junglejake has done a very good job of doing that. And it proves in Peters own written words that he aws not anywhere near a High preist like Jesus. He was a fisherman, and had nothing to do with Levis, prophacy, or the Order of Melchizedek
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).
Most Protestants who use this argument only tell part of the story of the Greek version of the Bible, and leave out some key information. A little knowledge, too little, is a dangerous thing.
The argument in Greek is weak because Christ would have addressed His disciples in Aramaic, the common language of that time and region. It would be unlikely that Jesus would have addressed His disciples in Greek. In fact, Peter is referred to other places in the New Testament as "Kephas."
When Jesus is referred to as "rock" in the new Testament, He is named in the Greek by the term Lithos and generally not as Petra or Petros, which is more correctly translated as stone, and in the context of the New Testament, the foundation stones of the Temple. The old translations keep this distinction. The word that Jesus uses is different - Petros/Petra. From this difference and the context of Matthew 16:18, it is unlikely that Jesus is referring to himself as the rock.
The reason for the difference (Petros/Petra) is related to the problem of translating the words of Christ into Greek. The cultural demands of the time would not permit the naming of a man with the feminine gender (petra). Therefore, the name of Peter was altered in the Greek to a masculine form - Petros.
In Aramaic or other languages, the problem is not there. In Aramaic the naming of Peter in Matthew 16:18 would go like this:
"Thou art Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my Church."
In fact, the same account in John had Jesus naming Peter in the Aramaic term (Gospel of John 1:42). So you see in the original language, there is no Petros/Petra distinction.
The Petros/Petra argument is an old argument that does not bear up under any reasonable scholarly examination.