Peter petra petros kepha
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/19/2012
If you want some seriously good, "non-partisan" linguistic research info on the Peter-petros-petra-kepha thing, you need to check out http://www.freetowne.com/pppkThe site just gives some pretty in-depth info, and actually gives source info and reference material, etc... Helps to cut through a bunch of the mis-information floating around out there about the "Peter the rock" thing...
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
When I went in yesterday, the links were blank, but now they do show information. And very interesting but I still would not call it non-partisan.
quote:
Assertion: Kepha is used in Aramaic texts to translate Hebrew sela , and the usual Greek translation in these cases is petra, indicating that kepha and petra can function synonymously.
Status: Conjecture
Very clever and well thought out, and it is true that there are numerous words for rock in Hebrew, more than even he has listed.
But he also missed one - in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29, the word for rocks there is keph, and this also translates into petra. And it is from keph that we get Simon-Peter's new name.
It is true that not all Hebrew words for rock translate into petra, but keph does.
Keph in Hebrew is Masculine not Feminine, and the John 1:42, Cephas is identified having come from the Aramaic, Cephas or kephas and Strongs describes this version of the word as Masculine also; however, I have seen other sources that also describe kepha (no s) as feminine. I am not an expert in Aramaic, but it would make sense if they viewed it as Masculine when applied to Peter.
Cephas, Kephas does appear to be a masculinized form of Kepha. Just as Petros has been masculinized from Petra.
And, yes, I understand that petros is a word in Attic Greek and not the masculine form of petra in Attic Greek; however, petros is not a word in Koine Greek which is the language they were using in the early Church after Aramaic.
It most certainly would have been necessary to find some way of masculinizing the feminine noun to be used as a man's name. I have yet to see a satisfactor explaination from Protestants for how they think that it should have been written in Koine Greek to satisfy the Catholic claim to their Protestant satisfaction.
Women named after Peter, are named Petra. That is the feminine form of the name Petros/Peter. And in languages where the nouns are masculine or neutral, the words do not change. So there is no sensible reason to assume that Jesus was really bad in grammar.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Well, first the complains about people stating assertions as facts without evidence, and then labels assertions as true or untrue or conjecture, but when I clicked on them - the results were "undefined" and no evidence given.
So much for cutting to the chase.
And it did not take long to find that some of the assertions that he ruled as "true" were actually false, and some of the assertions that he labeled as false were actually true. I thought I should add, there there are also some things that are accurrate too.
Perhaps this site is still under construction and the information is not all sorted out yet. But at this point in time, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
Edited by Faith_at_Large on 05/19/2012 21:11:58
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
On the plus side, he does provide some reference sites in one of his tabs.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/19/2012
Hmmmm... Maybe the site isn't working good with your browser... all the assertions have info, when I look...
Which of the "untrue" assertions did you disagree with? seems like those were pretty much undebatable, actually...
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/19/2012
Hmmmm... Maybe the site isn't working good with your browser... all the assertions have info, when I look...
Which of the "untrue" assertions did you disagree with? seems like those were pretty much undebatable, actually...
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6730 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by ftbond
Hmmmm... Maybe the site isn't working good with your browser... all the assertions have info, when I look...
Which of the "untrue" assertions did you disagree with? seems like those were pretty much undebatable, actually...
Tell me what you have found, And I will tell you if it agrees with the original Greek text meaning.
In the mean time, NOTE, Jesus didn't say,
"You are Peter,[Petros],and upon "YOU Petros",I will build My Church".
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6730 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by ftbond
If you want some seriously good, "non-partisan" linguistic research info on the Peter-petros-petra-kepha thing, you need to check out
http://www.freetowne.com/pppk
The site just gives some pretty in-depth info, and actually gives source info and reference material, etc...
Helps to cut through a bunch of the mis-information floating around out there about the "Peter the rock" thing...
You have said what you think,
Now let me show you the truth.
The original Greek text says,
"You are Peter, [Petros, The second person, Plual in number, A small stone that is easily moved or shaken],
And upon, ["PETERA" 3rd person singular in number, A solid foundation], I will build My Church.
In the Greek, The person and the number has to agree, And you can see that The "Rock Petra" doesn't agree with "Peter, Petros", Either in person or number.
Plus, Rock Petra, is a solid foundation, And Peter Petros, Is a shaky foundation,.. Didn't Peter prove it??.
PLUS.
Jesus never said He will build His Church on Peter, He said,
You are Peter, And upon, This [Other] rock, I will build My Church.
SO, The Bible and the Greek prove that Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter.
PLUS Jesus gave the key to the Church, Not to Peter.
Jesus said,
"I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, And I will give you [The Church] the keys".
Jesus built His Church and gave the key to it.
Which rules out the cathlics as they were formed for at least another 300 years.
Edited by God4me on 05/20/2012 05:25:11
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/30/2007
Location: United Kingdom
No, no, G4, you naughty wee scamp! A mighty bible student, like wot you say you am, would know that the conversation between Jesus & Simon was in Aramaic, not Greek! (This has been lost, but was known to have existed, as atested to by Eusebius of Caesarea) And in Aramaic the nicities of Greek grammer do not apply. Jesus referred to Simon as 'kepha', and used the same word in the rest of the sentence - He had to, it was the only word available in Aramaic. As for the argument you presenmt, then it surprizes me that a mighty greek scholar, like wot you tell us you am, does not 'fess up that the reason for the change from one form of petra to another is entirely needed to conform with the rules of greek grammer! Had Jesus been seeking to say as you claim (and had He been speaking greek) He would have used the word 'lithos', meaning a small stone for throwing!
Notable, too, is that throughout Galatians & 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to Peter as 'kephas', in the aramaic, not the Greek, even though Paul wrote his letters in greek!
Naughty little cult-leader, trying to porkie his way through life!
Ad Maioram Dei Gloriam
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/30/2007
Location: United Kingdom
But, of course, the quote from Matthew's gospel is not the sole basis for Catholic claims. As in all matters, the Church looks at Scripture as a whole, not as a random collection of snippets (the truely Great Sin of the Reformationists). One has only to read through the gospels to see Peter is always shown as first amongst the apostles: if the apostles are listed, Peter is first; at the Transfiguration, Peter is first, james & John mentioned second. And so on, again and again. The overwelming sense of it all is that Peter figures more highly than any other follower. Then, to top it all, we have the 3 fold commission in john's gospel. Here, Peter, and he alone, is singled out by Jesus and raised to the rank of Shephard, the vicar of Christ the Shephard, charged with tendering to the needs of the Christ's flock.
All in all only a blind man - deliberately self-blinded or otherwise - would fail to see the obvious elation of Peter by Christ, and the recognition of that position by the Church.
Ad Maioram Dei Gloriam
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6730 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by philial
No, no, G4, you naughty wee scamp! A mighty bible student, like wot you say you am, would know that the conversation between Jesus & Simon was in Aramaic, not Greek! (This has been lost, but was known to have existed, as atested to by Eusebius of Caesarea) And in Aramaic the nicities of Greek grammer do not apply. Jesus referred to Simon as 'kepha', and used the same word in the rest of the sentence - He had to, it was the only word available in Aramaic. As for the argument you presenmt, then it surprizes me that a mighty greek scholar, like wot you tell us you am, does not 'fess up that the reason for the change from one form of petra to another is entirely needed to conform with the rules of greek grammer! Had Jesus been seeking to say as you claim (and had He been speaking greek) He would have used the word 'lithos', meaning a small stone for throwing!
Notable, too, is that throughout Galatians & 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to Peter as 'kephas', in the aramaic, not the Greek, even though Paul wrote his letters in greek!
Naughty little cult-leader, trying to porkie his way through life!
There you go again..TELLING LIES.
Peter is, "Cephas, Kepha", [A Stone] in Aramaic.
And the Rock Is, "Shu"a", [A masive rock] In Aramaic.
Two differnt words, Two different meanings..FACT.
Peter is, "Petros", [A stone that is easily moved or shaken]
In the Greek.
The Rock is "Petra", A solid foundation], In the Greek.
Two different words, Two different meanings,..FACT.
Peter, is the second person and plural in number.
The Rock is the 3rd person and singular in nimber.
Two different persons and numbers, Two different meanings,..FACT.
But you have to tell lies, In order to keep your erroneous doctrine that Jesus built His Church on Peter.
Whereas the Bible, Aramaic and the Greek All prove that Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter...FACT.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6730 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by philial
But, of course, the quote from Matthew's gospel is not the sole basis for Catholic claims. As in all matters, the Church looks at Scripture as a whole, not as a random collection of snippets (the truely Great Sin of the Reformationists). One has only to read through the gospels to see Peter is always shown as first amongst the apostles: if the apostles are listed, Peter is first; at the Transfiguration, Peter is first, james & John mentioned second. And so on, again and again. The overwelming sense of it all is that Peter figures more highly than any other follower. Then, to top it all, we have the 3 fold commission in john's gospel. Here, Peter, and he alone, is singled out by Jesus and raised to the rank of Shephard, the vicar of Christ the Shephard, charged with tendering to the needs of the Christ's flock.
All in all only a blind man - deliberately self-blinded or otherwise - would fail to see the obvious elation of Peter by Christ, and the recognition of that position by the Church.
That doesn't prove that Jesus built His Church on Peter, Can't you see how you twist the Bible.
Paul did more that Peter did, Why didn't the catholics build their church on Paul instead of Peter??, After all Paul went to Rome where Peter didn't.
If Jesus built His Church on Peter, Why didn't He give Peter the revelations, Why did He give them to Paul instead??.
Paul wrote two thirds of the new testament by the revelations he got from Jesus.
Peter only wrote two letters.
Why did Jesis give John the revelation on Patmos and not Peter??.
The answear is, Because Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter. FACT.
Edited by God4me on 05/20/2012 09:52:42
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6730 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
When I went in yesterday, the links were blank, but now they do show information. And very interesting but I still would not call it non-partisan.
quote:
Assertion: Kepha is used in Aramaic texts to translate Hebrew sela , and the usual Greek translation in these cases is petra, indicating that kepha and petra can function synonymously.
Status: Conjecture
Very clever and well thought out, and it is true that there are numerous words for rock in Hebrew, more than even he has listed.
But he also missed one - in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:29, the word for rocks there is keph, and this also translates into petra. And it is from keph that we get Simon-Peter's new name.
It is true that not all Hebrew words for rock translate into petra, but keph does.
Keph in Hebrew is Masculine not Feminine, and the John 1:42, Cephas is identified having come from the Aramaic, Cephas or kephas and Strongs describes this version of the word as Masculine also; however, I have seen other sources that also describe kepha (no s) as feminine. I am not an expert in Aramaic, but it would make sense if they viewed it as Masculine when applied to Peter.
Cephas, Kephas does appear to be a masculinized form of Kepha. Just as Petros has been masculinized from Petra.
And, yes, I understand that petros is a word in Attic Greek and not the masculine form of petra in Attic Greek; however, petros is not a word in Koine Greek which is the language they were using in the early Church after Aramaic.
It most certainly would have been necessary to find some way of masculinizing the feminine noun to be used as a man's name. I have yet to see a satisfactor explaination from Protestants for how they think that it should have been written in Koine Greek to satisfy the Catholic claim to their Protestant satisfaction.
Women named after Peter, are named Petra. That is the feminine form of the name Petros/Peter. And in languages where the nouns are masculine or neutral, the words do not change. So there is no sensible reason to assume that Jesus was really bad in grammar.
For the Biblica, Aramaic and Greek truth, See this.
There you go again..TELLING LIES.
Peter is, "Cephas, Kepha", [A Stone] in Aramaic.
And the Rock Is, "Shu"a", [A masive rock] In Aramaic.
Two differnt words, Two different meanings..FACT.
Peter is, "Petros", [A stone that is easily moved or shaken]
In the Greek.
The Rock is "Petra", A solid foundation], In the Greek.
Two different words, Two different meanings,..FACT.
Peter, is the second person and plural in number.
The Rock is the 3rd person and singular in nimber.
Two different persons and numbers, Two different meanings,..FACT.
But you have to tell lies, In order to keep your erroneous doctrine that Jesus built His Church on Peter.
Whereas the Bible, Aramaic and the Greek All prove that Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter...FACT.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
The issue that the site author does not consider is that while Petra can translate into more than one Hebrew word, how many Greek words can the Aramaic words for Rock (there are two, but very similar) be translated into.
He showed that the Aramaic word for rock can translate into sela/cela in Hebrew, and it can also translate into keph in Hebrew and both of these words translate back into Petra in Greek. Therefore, the word that Peter was named in Aramaic definitely and uniquely translates as Petra in Greek.
Regardless of what imaginative theories he may produce to show the potential for other meanings, the people who heard Jesus speak this statement would have also considered the syntax of the statement.
The Aramaic/Syriac New Testament puts the full emphasis on Peter being that rock. To try to suggest otherwise only goes to suggest that people though Jesus was an illiterate fool incapable of speaking basic Aramaic.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
And at no time other than in relation to Peter, does the Aramaic Kepha ever translate into Petros. It does translate into Petra, but not Petros. The first time we see petros in the Bible is used with Simon Peter, where a feminine noun would not be applied.
Plural kephim (as found in Job 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:39) comes from singular keph (keph being the root word), the assertion that because keph does not appear as a word in the Bible does not mean that it is not a word in Hebrew.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/30/2007
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
quote:
Originally posted by philial
But, of course, the quote from Matthew's gospel is not the sole basis for Catholic claims. As in all matters, the Church looks at Scripture as a whole, not as a random collection of snippets (the truely Great Sin of the Reformationists). One has only to read through the gospels to see Peter is always shown as first amongst the apostles: if the apostles are listed, Peter is first; at the Transfiguration, Peter is first, james & John mentioned second. And so on, again and again. The overwelming sense of it all is that Peter figures more highly than any other follower. Then, to top it all, we have the 3 fold commission in john's gospel. Here, Peter, and he alone, is singled out by Jesus and raised to the rank of Shephard, the vicar of Christ the Shephard, charged with tendering to the needs of the Christ's flock.
All in all only a blind man - deliberately self-blinded or otherwise - would fail to see the obvious elation of Peter by Christ, and the recognition of that position by the Church.
That doesn't prove that Jesus built His Church on Peter, Can't you see how you twist the Bible.
Paul did more that Peter did, Why didn't the catholics build their church on Paul instead of Peter??, After all Paul went to Rome where Peter didn't.
If Jesus built His Church on Peter, Why didn't He give Peter the revelations, Why did He give them to Paul instead??.
Paul wrote two thirds of the new testament by the revelations he got from Jesus.
Peter only wrote two letters.
Why did Jesis give John the revelation on Patmos and not Peter??.
The answear is, Because Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter. FACT.
You make a good point, and ask a good question - so, why didn't the Church chose thev more productive Paul? It would have been the more obvious choice, even one that occured to you! The answer is precisely bevause it was Jesus, not the Church, which did the choosing!
Ad Maioram Dei Gloriam
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS