U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2011, 07:22 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,285,426 times
Reputation: 330

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ans57 View Post
bingo!
Early Christians in Jerusalem, absolutely. Didn't James run that area? However, the head of the Church resided in Rome. How do you convert the Roman Empire. From it's heart. Makes perfect sense.

Besides, the Early Church fathers disagree with you. Particularly, Iranaeus.

Last edited by juj; 01-18-2011 at 07:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2011, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,290,245 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
Please stop using that argument of the "small stone". In the day there was no difference between the meaning of Petra and Petros. Besides, do you want Peter to have the feminine version of the name? Besides, Jesus didn't use the term Petros. He used the Aramaic name "Kepha" for which there is only one meaning. Please educate yourself with these facts and NEVER present them to anyone again because they are false.

Excerpt from: Peter the Rock (This Rock: November 1998)

"What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing
petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get "Cephas")—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—"You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church"—should be decisive for our interpretation."
Greek nouns have gender, and the problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof for the Roman Catholic, or any other position for that matter. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have? Like the Aramaic text? Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Also, in John 1:42 it says, He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," ......which is translated Peter. The word Peter here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic. Except in John 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter......the translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names.

The feminine petra occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Matt. 27:60
, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.

1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.

1 Pet. 2:8 speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra ...nominative singular...petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular.. we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out Matt. 27:60 and in reference to Christ 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8.

Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus!

Quote:
1. Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
1. Petros: "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα
2. Petra: πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone."

2. Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell.
1. PETRA πέτρα , (4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.
A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch
Matt 14:29-30; Luke 22:57-58; Gal 2:11-14.


Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus.

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matt. 16:18

And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra
-Christ) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Rev 1:18

I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as His redeemed, need to keep our eyes on Him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter, for he is the movable stone, that was wayward, and doubted much, unlike Christ, whom we fall upon, and are broken.

1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 07:49 AM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,285,426 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Greek nouns have gender, and the problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof for the Roman Catholic, or any other position for that matter. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have? Like the Aramaic text? Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Also, in John 1:42 it says, He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," ......which is translated Peter. The word Peter here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic. Except in John 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter......the translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names.

The feminine petra occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Matt. 27:60
, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.

1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.

1 Pet. 2:8 speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra ...nominative singular...petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular.. we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out Matt. 27:60 and in reference to Christ 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8.

Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus!

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch
Matt 14:29-30; Luke 22:57-58; Gal 2:11-14.


Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus.

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matt. 16:18

And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra
-Christ) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Rev 1:18

I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as His redeemed, need to keep our eyes on Him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter, for he is the movable stone, that was wayward, and doubted much, unlike Christ, whom we fall upon, and are broken.

1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
So we should start calling Peter with a feminine version of any languages name? You see the problem. Besides, let's put "little stone" in the context of the verses in modern language and see if it makes any sense.

Jesus: Who do you think I am?
Peter: You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.
Jesus: You could not have known that on your own. God has told you of me. And because you have listened to God, I will change your name to "little stone" and on this "little stone" I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail against my Church of the "little stone".
Peter: (interrupts) "Little stone?" Ah, Jesus, I don't want to be a pain or anything, but don't you think after God's chosen people has waited thousands of years to reconcile it's relationship with God, that it might be a better idea to build your Church on, well, say, on a rock. A big rock. A rock with a strong foundation so it will actually last through at least the next few thousand years.......I'm just saying.

Folks, forget the little stone argument. It is false and certainly didn't jive with what the Early Church Fathers believed. So quit trying to change the intent and meaning when it serves your protestant purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:45 AM
 
1,837 posts, read 1,586,752 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
So we should start calling Peter with a feminine version of any languages name? You see the problem. Besides, let's put "little stone" in the context of the verses in modern language and see if it makes any sense.

Jesus: Who do you think I am?
Peter: You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.
Jesus: You could not have known that on your own. God has told you of me. And because you have listened to God, I will change your name to "little stone" and on this "little stone" I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail against my Church of the "little stone".
Peter: (interrupts) "Little stone?" Ah, Jesus, I don't want to be a pain or anything, but don't you think after God's chosen people has waited thousands of years to reconcile it's relationship with God, that it might be a better idea to build your Church on, well, say, on a rock. A big rock. A rock with a strong foundation so it will actually last through at least the next few thousand years.......I'm just saying.

Folks, forget the little stone argument. It is false and certainly didn't jive with what the Early Church Fathers believed. So quit trying to change the intent and meaning when it serves your protestant purposes.
It's pretty clear to me as well. Also what's even more clear is the fact that Christ did say he was giving Peter the Keys... and that pretty much says it all and tears down his whole arguement on this... in my opinion.

He was talking to Peter, about Peter. And He was right, we still have Peter's teaching today...lol

Sometimes the best thing to do is just read, and listen.

Last edited by O-Ducky; 01-19-2011 at 09:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:55 PM
 
17,785 posts, read 8,896,463 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Greek nouns have gender, and the problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof for the Roman Catholic, or any other position for that matter. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have? Like the Aramaic text? Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Also, in John 1:42 it says, He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," ......which is translated Peter. The word Peter here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic. Except in John 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter......the translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names.

The feminine petra occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Matt. 27:60
, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.

1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ.

1 Pet. 2:8 speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra ...nominative singular...petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular.. we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out Matt. 27:60 and in reference to Christ 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8.

Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus!

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch
Matt 14:29-30; Luke 22:57-58; Gal 2:11-14.


Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus.

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matt. 16:18

And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra
-Christ) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Rev 1:18

I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as His redeemed, need to keep our eyes on Him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter, for he is the movable stone, that was wayward, and doubted much, unlike Christ, whom we fall upon, and are broken.

1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
"You are PETROS (a movable, rolling stone) but upon this PETRA (an unmovable, large or massive rock) I will build my church."

Ke’pha
is a movable stone which equals; Lithos and Petros.
Now, the word SHU’A is translated as; a Massive Rock.

You are KE'PHA and upon this SHU’A (I will build my church).

I find it interesting that the stone before the tomb of Jesus our Lord, was movable, any thoughts on this?


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:01 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,285,426 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
“You are PETROS (a movable, rolling stone) but upon this PETRA (an unmovable, large or massive rock) I will build my church.

Ke’pha
is a movable stone which equals; Lithos and Petros.
Now, the word SHU’A is translated as; a Massive Rock.

You are KE'PHA and upon this SHU’A (I will build my church).

I find it interesting that the stone before the tomb of Jesus our Lord, was movable, any thoughts on this?


There's no "but" in the first line.

This whole situation reminds me of the (bear with me) Army of Darkness line: "Good? Bad? I'm the guy gun."

Peter: "Rock? Little Stone? I'm the guy with the keys!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:16 PM
 
17,785 posts, read 8,896,463 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post
There's no "but" in the first line.

This whole situation reminds me of the (bear with me) Army of Darkness line: "Good? Bad? I'm the guy gun."

Peter: "Rock? Little Stone? I'm the guy with the keys!"
Regardless of the good, bad, or ugly, the church is built on the Spirit of Christ, not that of men.
The key is not for locking people up, but freeing them from religious captivity; and the bondage's of men.
So, who is it that set the captives free? (Is it not, He who holds the Key?).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:53 PM
juj
 
Location: Too far from MSG
1,657 posts, read 2,285,426 times
Reputation: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Regardless of the good, bad, or ugly, the church is built on the Spirit of Christ, not that of men.
The key is not for locking people up, but freeing them from religious captivity; and the bondage's of men.
So, who is it that set the captives free? (Is it not, He who holds the Key?).
You just make it up as you go, don't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 11:08 PM
 
5,500 posts, read 4,419,176 times
Reputation: 5147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade View Post
Regardless of the good, bad, or ugly, the church is built on the Spirit of Christ, not that of men.
The key is not for locking people up, but freeing them from religious captivity; and the bondage's of men.
So, who is it that set the captives free? (Is it not, He who holds the Key?).
Yes...the one who holds the key, or the one who is entrusted with the key!

Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus did not utter these words in hope that he made the right decision...for he certainly knew and knows the heart of men.

Peace!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2011, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,302 posts, read 5,290,245 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj View Post

Folks, forget the little stone argument. It is false and certainly didn't jive with what the Early Church Fathers believed. So quit trying to change the intent and meaning when it serves your protestant purposes.
I highly respect the RCC, but I believe they are incorrect in their interpretation on this. They have no foundation to their premise....it was not written in Aramaic....so it cannot be analyzed as such. It is moot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top