Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Oh...so umm...why did he change Simon's name to Peter...which means rock? 🙂
You'd have to ask Jesus. But Peter in Greek is the word petros which means a rock or stone. But Jesus said upon this petra i.e. large stone, cliff, crag, or ledge, He will build His church. There appears to be a big difference. You see, Christ is the Head of the church--not Peter or the Pope according to the Scriptures.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You'd have to ask Jesus. But Peter in Greek is the word petros which means a rock or stone. But Jesus said upon this petra i.e. large stone, cliff, crag, or ledge, He will build His church. There appears to be a big difference. You see, [b]Christ is the Head of the church--not Peter or the Pope according to the Scriptures. [/B]
😱 I am so ashamed of you JIA. You are a lost sinner. 😆 😆
*Roles onto the floor and laughs until he can't breath.* 😆
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You'd have to ask Jesus. But Peter in Greek is the word petros which means a rock or stone. But Jesus said upon this petra i.e. large stone, cliff, crag, or ledge, He will build His church. There appears to be a big difference. You see, [b]Christ is the Head of the church--not Peter or the Pope according to the Scriptures. [/B]
Interesting point, sadly untrue.
The words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. There was, many centuries before a distinction between the two this however had disappeared by the time of writing the gospels. If the Gospel had been written in Attic Greek you'd have a point, however it wasn't it 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.
However, this is Greek...Jesus spoke Aramaic!
We know this because in his epistles Paul reffered to Peter by the name Jesus used for him- Cephas a transliteration of the word Kepha. 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.’
Why then is kepha translated into Greek as Petros and not petra? Why do we not read, "You are Petra and upon this petra I shall build my Church"?
Why the answer is obvious the Greek language has "gender endings" 😱
What does this mean then?
Well, Petra is a feminine word...so you can use it in the second part of the verse accuritely as you should...however you can't use it in the first part...after all you can use a feminine noun as a man's name. 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.
However, thats just grammar...what about context?
Peter gives his revelation about the identity of Jesus...Jesus responds...however he 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." What does he actually say? As we have shown Jesus said "You are Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church...I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." This last bit...keys to kingdom of heaven...if Jesus was playing down Peter's authority why did he include this line? 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.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Interesting point, sadly untrue.The words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. There was, many centuries before a distinction between the two this however had disappeared by the time of writing the gospels. If the Gospel had been written in Attic Greek you'd have a point, however it wasn't it 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.
However, this is Greek...Jesus spoke Aramaic!
We know this because in his epistles Paul reffered to Peter by the name Jesus used for him- Cephas a transliteration of the word Kepha. 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.’
Why then is kepha translated into Greek as Petros and not petra? Why do we not read, "You are Petra and upon this petra I shall build my Church"?
Why the answer is obvious the Greek language has "gender endings" 😱
What does this mean then?
Well, Petra is a feminine word...so you can use it in the second part of the verse accuritely as you should...however you can't use it in the first part...after all you can use a feminine noun as a man's name. 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.
However, thats just grammar...what about context?
Peter gives his revelation about the identity of Jesus...Jesus responds...however he 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." What does he actually say? As we have shown Jesus said "You are Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my Church...I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven." This last bit...keys to kingdom of heaven...if Jesus was playing down Peter's authority why did he include this line? 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.
Very good job pointing out those distinctions; nevertheless, Jesus never told Peter that He would build His church upon him (this is perhaps the most important distinction of all). These links should elucidate my point more emphatically (it would behoove you to read them):
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveDid you research this material? If not it is only an opinion 😉
Very good job pointing out those distinctions; nevertheless, Jesus never told Peter that He would build His church upon [B]him (this is perhaps the most important distinction of all). These links should elucidate my point more emphatically (it would behoove you to read them):http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php [/B]
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Did you research this material? If not it is only an opinion 😉
You appear to be mocking me. I thought I abundantly explained to you why I used that rationale towards you? Can you recall? If so you would understand my only reason for doing it instead of coming off bitter (this is just my assessment). Do I need to apologize to you? Is that what you want?
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveSo you are backtracking now? I asked you what your definition was and you gave me your answer, nothing about you trying to play games. Only in later posts not related did you do this.
You appear to be mocking me. I thought I abundantly explained to you why I used that rationale towards you? Can you recall? If so you would understand my only reason for doing it instead of coming off bitter (this is just my assessment). Do I need to apologize to you? Is that what you want?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
And the difference in when we post links is, you discount them and ignore them as well.OH wait that is the same.
So what is the difference again in your posting links to research that you haven't done personally and others posting links?
What about my other questions, or are you going to ingnore those as well? 😖
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did that to show you the double-standard the exists. I take things by faith and you do as well.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Please explain how I take things on faith? I'm not the one saying I have all the answers.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Facts or research that you have not personally conducted or arrived at through the scientific method (this includes anything that you have read regardless if it is peer-reviewed or not).
So without playing games what is your definition? You have used this argument against other posters long before me.
And yes I was mocking you as you do with everyone else 😉
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Very good job pointing out those distinctions; nevertheless, Jesus never told Peter that He would build His church upon [B]him (this is perhaps the most important distinction of all). These links should elucidate my point more emphatically (it would behoove you to read them):http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html
http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.php [/B]
Interesting, however I'm not sure what your "sources" actually claim. The first one seems to state that Jesus never gave authority to Peter...thats it...an entire article to say that. However, I imagine the writer said that because they, like you, misunderstood the translation of Petra and Petros... so because they mistakenly believed Jesus was not calling Peter the rock, he was not giving him any authority.
However, we have discovered that Peter does indeed mean rock and Matthew does indeed show Jesus giving Peter authority. "What you bind on earth I shall bind in heaven, what you loosen on earth I shall loosen in heaven"
So the first page- Jesus never says Peter has authority...oh yes he does! We just proved it right here by showing the true translations of Peter!
Page 2, It talks about the Church having a divine foundation- Jesus...this is in fact true yes, Jesus is the Head of the Church however he left behind a visible representative- The Pope. The Pope is only Head of the Church in the sense that he is the Vicar of Christ.
The page then goes over the Peter name thing, but we have settled that.
It then says Peter and the Pope are unfit Vicars of Christ...interesting, it talks about the "Get behind me Satan" incident and the denial three times. Interesting, but who did Jesus then appear to and tell to shepherd the flock..and the APOSTLES! (PRIMACY!!!!) ?
The "bad Popes"? Well, as Jesus said, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So...the continuity of Apostolic Succession was never lost...indeed, Peter denied Christ three times, but he was forgiven and maintained his position...so too did the Papacy.
🙂
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So you are backtracking now? I asked you what your definition was and you gave me your answer, nothing about you trying to play games. Only in later posts not related did you do this.So without playing games what is your definition? You have used this argument against other posters long before me.
And yes I was mocking you as you do with everyone else 😉
No, I do not believe that I am backtracking (whatever that means).
Definition of what? I am sorry I do not follow what you mean.
No, I do not recall using this rationale towards anyone but you (maybe I have to those who accuse me of having blind faith, I am not sure). I have asked fellow posters to prove something, but only in jest, in response to their challenge for me to prove what I obviously have explained numerous times that I take by faith.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYou have claimed that I have faith in science, so how do I have faith in science? Please explain to me how I have faith in science?
No, I do not believe that I am backtracking (whatever that means).Definition of what? I am sorry I do not follow what you mean.
No, I do not recall using this rationale towards anyone but you (maybe I have to those who accuse me of having blind faith, I am not sure). I have asked fellow posters to prove something, but only in jest, in response to their challenge for me to prove what I obviously have explained numerous times that I take by faith.