Peter, Petros, Petra
-
-
- Adminreputation
- 10491 Posts
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/25/2001
Location: USA
Is Peter the Rock? Baptists and Catholics discuss.
Astralis
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/10/2002
Location: USA
Yes . . . because Jesus said so.
In Christ,
Tad
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/10/2002
"Thou art pebble"???
If we accept the argument made in the original link, that a dichotemy is drawn between a "large rock" and a "small stone," then why did the name stick?
Remember, Jesus is talking to Simon, son of Jonah. Protestants want to believe that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus says "Simon, you're a small stone, but I'm a great big rock." If the point of the passage was to contrast the two, why did Simon come to be known as Peter?
In the King James Bible, "Peter" is the name given to Simon 161 times, and "Cephas" 6 times. After the gospels (Acts through Revelations), he is referred to as Peter 65 times. There are only 5 times from Acts to Revelations that he is called "Simon," and each instance Peter or Cephas is given as a surname. So clearly, the New Testament writers saw that Simon had his name changed by God to Peter. Why was his name changed to "small stone"?
The answer, of course, is that it wasn't. It was changed to "Rock" (see John 1:42) to signify his new calling as the one Christ would build His Church on earth. Just like Abram and Jacob (Abraham and Israel, respectively) had their names changed in the Old Testament when God gave them a new calling.
One of the non-Catholics in the link is even kind enough to quote Ephesians 2:20 - "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." Isn't this anathema to protestant theology to believe that the Church could be built on the apostles? Christ built His Church on the apostles, of which Peter "the rock" held supreme authority, the rock Christ built His Church on and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against.
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/10/2002
Location: USA
10-4 good buddy!
In Christ,
Tad
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/29/2002
Location: USA
One can also point out that petros/petras is Greek. Christ is shown as speaking Aramaic when he was dying, and hence, probably the language he spoke most often. In Aramaic, there is one word for "rock", Kephas. In the Greek, it is simply a matter or proper grammar (petros being masculine, hence describing Peter).
Also, up until Peter, no human was ever called rock (large or small), that was a title reserved for God! What a message that sends to us, that Jesus Christ would use a name reserved for God to give to a man!
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/10/2002
Location: USA
This might be a good thread to append some of our discussion of Peter being "THE Rock upon which Christ would build His church".
I have a couple of loose ends to tie up here. First of all, the present discussion, as far as what I am addressing is the use of Isaiah 22:20-22 and how it puts Jesus in a bad light if interpreted in context. Also, there was an actual historical figure of Eliakim son of Hilkiah that it literally spoke to. This is an allegorical interpretation - I have seen this type of interpreting of Scripture from Catholics on other passages. This, to me, is the least reliable method of interpretation (we can all lift out portions of text and allegorically apply it to just about anything). So, that is the issue I am currently addressing.
Matt wrote:
quote:
My first point here would be to ask who is to say what is and is not an "obscure" passage. Saying that the Isiah parallel is irrelavant because it is from an obscure passage is paramount to claiming some verses of Scripture carry more weight than others. We all share the common beleif that the entire body of Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and therefore infallible, correct? That being the case, what does it matter is a particular passage is considered by some to be "obscure?" All that tells me is that some people have not carefully read Isiah.
And this passage has everything to do with Peter. Only you are not seeing it. When Jesus said to Peter, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what ever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what ever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," he was using obvious linguistic parallels to Isiaih 22:22. This should not surprise us. Jesus, when he spoke, often alluded to the Scriptures (the Old Testament). It is up to us therefore to recognize when this is being done and to explore the signifigance of this.
Not carefully read Isaiah? - this is precisely the point, when one goes back and reads the quotes in context, they don't support what is being said. As for Christ making an allusion to this passage - this seems to be quite plausible, and even likely, the phrasing in consistent. But as I have shown in Revelation 3:8 (written to churches well after the papacy was supposedly instituted) Jesus says to John "I open the door no man can shut...keys of David...etc." And consistently in the N.T. Jesus alone is referred to as The Rock - not Peter.
quote:
Jesus uses the same language in Matthew 16:18, where the master (Jesus) is giving authority to his servant (Peter) and this is signified once more by the giving of keys and the power to bind and loose (open and shut).
The Isiah parallel shows that these symbols, these words, conveyed the authority of the master, and that Peter was the recipient of that authority. Not that Peter and Eliakim were alike in every way.
So who is the wicked king who's authority is being ripped away because of unfaithfulness? - If God is transferring Jesus' authority to Peter, how do you reconcile that part?
Also, there were several others present, and later in the N.T. it says the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets"
As for Scripture saying who is The Rock - it sure would have been nice if there was just one passage that spoke of Jesus AND Peter being the rock. (ie Paul or James or Book of Acts mentioning the church being built on Peter)
What is being used for proof is an inductive method of interpretation - w
-
-
- Adminreputation
- 10491 Posts
Member since 07/25/2001
Location: USA
quote:
As for Scripture saying who is The Rock - it sure would have been nice if there was just one passage that spoke of Jesus AND Peter being the rock. (ie Paul or James or Book of Acts mentioning the church being built on Peter)
Yeah, same with the Trinity.
Astralis
In sempiterna saecula
Links | FAQ
-
-
- Adminreputation
- 10491 Posts
Member since 07/25/2001
Location: USA
This is the footnote commentary on Matt 16:18 from the NAB:
quote:
You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9,11,14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter"). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.
The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts" (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter's exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.
Astralis
In sempiterna saecula
Links | FAQ
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/10/2002
Location: USA
Matt,
quote:
I hope you are not implying by this that Catholic theologians do not do the exact same thing. It is a Catholic teaching (in fact, was a Catholic teaching first and foremost) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and is therefore authoritative, and internally consistant. And, for this reason, each and every teaching of the Catholic Church is examined on its own merit by the Word of God.
I'm not suggesting foul play, nor bad scholarship - but I do find it highly likely that biases can be read into the text. I would question any group that gets it's major tenets of theology from basically unclear passages or inductive means. I'm not saying they are wrong, necessarily - as we all do this, but for me "The clear must interpret the unclear"
quote:
If you do not agree that a particular Catholic teaching is compatible with Sacred Scripture, it is because you are interpreting Scripture in a different manner than the Church. For myself, I feel more comfortable trusting the consistant teaching of the authoritative Church for matters that may affect the salvation of my soul, than the interpretations and opinions of any private individual.
And that is a respectable position to take - I receive the just criticism of 'private interpretation' being a significant problem. But, from my perspective, since I view the Body of Christ to be made up of ALL Christians, I have to consider many, many godly leaders of the church who disagree with the papacy. I do weigh out tradition and teaching and godly leadership, but this is one area of Catholic theology that is problematic for me to accept.
quote:
This attitude seems to say, "If God really meant us to believe something, He would have written it out plainly in a way that I could understand. I don't understand, therefore I won't believe it.".......
The main problem with this attitude, of course, is that it makes you the final arbiter of the faith.
quote:
As to why this portion is interpreted to apply to Peter - (I hesitate slightly here)it appears to me to have strong elements of reverse engineering - one has to already believe in the papacy to receive it.
This is most likely just a product of your perspective. It seems to me, for instance, that one already must believe that Jesus did not establish the papacy to not see that He was talking about Peter when He said, "on this rock I will build my church."
You bring up valid points, but I would point out that it works both ways. All of our viewpoints are products of our perspectives. And as I have mentioned on other threads, we are all 'final arbitors of the faith' in the sense that you have privately come to trust in the Catholic Authority, I have chosen to trust a more diverse body of authority, both of us are bound by Scripture & conscience to obey and respect those who have charge over us. Others would privately choose to be a law unto themselves - any of these decisions could entail 'attitudes', or not. At this point I'm not picking up a whole lot attitudes from anyone, just sincere disagreements and
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
i know this subject is a real sore spot and tends to be extreemely devicive, but i would like to apologise to anyone that may have been offended by anything i said here. these are issues for me and still are. sorry. i just do not see the same flow as some of you do. but i do appreciate all who have responded reasonably and in good faith.
mike
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo.
-
-
- Adminreputation
- 10491 Posts
Member since 07/25/2001
Location: USA
You haven't offended anyone here. No one who here would be offended by honest dialogue - whether you agree or disagree.
Astralis
In sempiterna saecula
Links | FAQ
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/10/2002
Location: USA
Astralis,
quote:
Is Peter the Rock? Baptists and Catholics discuss.
Read this link: http://www.cinnabarandmercury.com/religion/BookDetail.asp?item_id=54&
Astralis
quote:
It's actually difficult to find a Prostestant scholar to disagree with the Catholic interpretation of "Rock" today. Except for KJVonlyists. They still cling to old-time religion from a hundred years ago.
Astralis
In sempiterna saecula
Links | FAQ
I am getting back to this thought - I missed the article when you first posted it - in it, you list a few Protestant sources that agree with the Kepha/kepha, Peter=Rock - and as you said, they just don't go with the papacy. I'm studying out a few of these commentaries - if you could direct me to some good links, I would appreciate it.
For me, it is easier to trust a Protestant source in this area because I suspect Catholic bias is influencing you guys' position (no offense). And actually, just to clarify, when I asked about Isa 22 and said "Am I missing something?" - that was an honest question.
To be continued......
Id quod me non interimit confirmat!
Allen
Home Page
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/28/2002
Location: USA
Allen:
quote:
First of all, the present discussion, as far as what I am addressing is the use of Isaiah 22:20-22 and how it puts Jesus in a bad light if interpreted in context. Also, there was an actual historical figure of Eliakim son of Hilkiah that it literally spoke to. This is an allegorical interpretation - I have seen this type of interpreting of Scripture from Catholics on other passages. This, to me, is the least reliable method of interpretation (we can all lift out portions of text and allegorically apply it to just about anything).
Please keep in mind here, also, that no one is saying that the reason Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18 as they do is because of or dependant upon Isaiah 22:22. Isaiah 22:22 is a supportive passage because we see the same symbols being used to convey authority -- nothing else is implied by this.
Jesus undeniably used the same idioms in His speech to Peter as were used in Isaiah 22:22, so obviously He intended us to note some parallels.
Showing where Peter and Eliakim were different doesn't do anything to refute the Catholic position, because the Catholic Church does not make those claims. It is merely showing how, in the Old Testament, the keys, and the power to bind and loose, were both symbols of authority that could be granted from master to servant.
quote:
Not carefully read Isaiah? - this is precisely the point, when one goes back and reads the quotes in context, they don't support what is being said. As for Christ making an allusion to this passage - this seems to be quite plausible, and even likely, the phrasing in consistent. But as I have shown in Revelation 3:8 (written to churches well after the papacy was supposedly instituted) Jesus says to John "I open the door no man can shut...keys of David...etc." And consistently in the N.T. Jesus alone is referred to as The Rock - not Peter.
Read above regarding the context of Isaiah. You are trying to make the Catholic Church say something more than she does about the parallels between this passage and Matthew 16:18.
Regarding "consistanly in the N.T. Jesus alone is referred to as The Rock -- not Peter," this simply and undeniably is false. Jesus is a few times in the New Testament referred to as a rock. But Peter, blessed St. Peter, is referred to as "Rock" each and every time he is mentioned.
His very name was changed from Simon bar Jonah into Rock -- Peter, Caphas, Kepa, Pierre, Pedro, Petros, what ever language you use the meaning is the same -- Rock. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, forever changed Simon's name to Rock and he is called by that name throughout the ages.
Claiming that Peter is never referred to as "rock" is, again, willfull blindness.
quote:
So who is the wicked king who's authority is being ripped away because of unfaithfulness? - If God is transferring Jesus' authority to Peter, how do you reconcile that part?
We don't need to, because it is irrelavant. Again, no one is suggesting that Isaiah and Matthew are parrallels in every way. The reference to Isaiah 22:22 is to show how particular symbols are used to convey the authority of a master to a servant. This is the only claim being made for this passage.
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/28/2002
Location: USA
Just an FYI, those Catholics on this forum who have a Sunday missal, take a look at the readings for this Sunday coming up, the 25th.
Pax,
Matt
Turris Fortis Mihi Deus
God is my Strong Tower
Catholic Apologetics at
http://albanach.org/apologetics
-
-
- Adminreputation
- 10491 Posts
Member since 07/25/2001
Location: USA
Albanach,
So appropriate.
Here is a link if you want to read this Sunday's readings and understand what we're talking about.
Also, kudos to Albanach for preparing for Sunday's service. That's piety! 
Astralis
In sempiterna saecula
Links | FAQ
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/28/2002
Location: USA
Thanks for the link to the readings. I wanted to post a link to them, but usually when I need the mass readings on line, I use the EWTN web page (http://www.ewtn.com) but for some reason they are missing the whole last week in August.
Pax,
Matt
Turris Fortis Mihi Deus
God is my Strong Tower
Catholic Apologetics at
http://albanach.org/apologetics
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS