This just in from the Vatican: The Pope's journey to the Cross

I found this at:
http://carla_b.tripod.com/realfacts/id3.html

In John 1:42 we read that Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon, to Cephas which when translated, literally means stone.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says "thou art Peter"

Now John 1:42 already says that by interpretation, (Peter) Cephas means stone, so when you look up the word(name) Peter in the Greek translation, you'll find that it actually means petros ??d the definition for petros is literally, a piece of rock. This is important, so keep this in mind, Jesus changed Simon?ame to Peter (Cephas), which means, PIECE of rock (which is exactly what a stone is, look up the word stone in any dictionary).

Now let's go back to verse 18, and continue...

Jesus said "and upon this rock..." let's stop here. Jesus uses a different word now. We already know Peter is translated as petros, which means piece of rock, but now Jesus uses the actual word rock, instead of petros.

If we look up "rock" in the Greek, it's translated "petra" (not petros) and means mass of rock.

So petros means PIECE of rock
and petra means MASS of rock
(two different words, which mean two different things)

Going back to verse 18, we could take what Jesus actually said, and in place of the English words our Scriptures are translated into, we could use the definitions of the Greek words, it was translated FROM. If we did that, it would actually read this way:

"Thou art a piece of rock, and upon this mass of rock, I will build my church."

Jesus' words take on a whole new meaning when you understand what the English words actually mean, in the original language of Greek, which is what the New Testament is translated from.

Jesus did not say He was building His church on Peter, He said He was building His church on the mass of rock, and that Peter was a piece of rock. So what's the "mass of rock" Jesus was talking about??

If you go back to what Jesus said in verse 17, you'll see that Jesus called Peter blessed, because God had revealed to Peter that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. Jesus continues that thought in verse 18, He says (substituting the original Greek meanings for English words here) "AND I say also unto thee (Jesus was responding to Peter just confessing that He is the Son of God) thou art a piece of rock, and upon this mass of rock I will build my church".

Scripture says that Jesus actually said "upon this rock" The mass of rock Jesus was talking about was the divine revelation given by God of who Jesus is, confessing that He is Christ, confessing your faith in Him...

THIS is the "mass of rock" that Jesus told Peter He would build His church on.
--------------------------

I also found this at:
http://www.bibletruths.net/Greek%20Course/Lesson%20One%20of%20Greek%20Course.htm
The Greek text on the site did not appear below:

Some maintain that Jesus is promising to build his church on Peter; hence, the papacy. A knowledge of Greek, however, shows such is not the case. "Peter" is from the masculine Greek noun Petros, transliterated and pronounced Pétros in English (you will learn how to do this). "Rock" is the Greek petra, transliterated and pronounced pétra. Pétra is a noun of the feminine gender. Furthermore, the noun translated Peter (Petros) "a detached stone" and "Rock" (petra) means "a mass of rock, as distinct from petros…" (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine). Jesus did not say to Peter, "epi (on) sou (thee) Petros (Peter)". Hence, from the Greek text you see two different nouns, two different meanings, and two different genders. It would have been grammatically improper to have referred to Peter by using the feminine noun petra. All of this will become more understood as you advance in this course, be patient.
________________
Over all I thought this was interesting.

 

You have to prove that this difference existed in the Greek of the NT writers. I have read that it did not exist; that it only existed in earlier Greek poetry but that the difference had disappeared by the time of Christ.

Further, as Kathryn posted, we have evidence that Christ was speaking in Aramaic ("bar-Jona"), not Greek. If Christ had indeed used the same word in both cases, what would have been the proper Greek translation of "thou art rock, and upon this rock..."? If the proper translation, according to correct Greek useage, would have involved using both "petros" and "petra", then your argument requires that it was impossible to translate Christ's meaning (kepha - kepha) accurately into Greek. That is simply not believable.

 

Singingcop said:Scripture says that Jesus actually said "upon this rock" The mass of rock Jesus was talking about was the divine revelation given by God of who Jesus is, confessing that He is Christ, confessing your faith in Him...

THIS is the "mass of rock" that Jesus told Peter He would build His church on.

I agree with him. This is what I have been saying all along!! It's not Peter that Jesus built his church on, it's the fact that God revealed to Peter who Christ was, and the fact that God can reveal the same thing to us!!!

Lets go back to the scripture: Matthew 16-16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

He was ALREADY named Peter!! He was called Peter when Jesus first called him!!

So his name was not changed. That does not wash as was demonstrated by the singingcop!!

The church of Jesus is built on Him and Him alone. Jesus is the ROCK of the church, Not Peter, Peter was a mere man. Jesus is the only firm foundation that a church could be built on.

Peace,

Tam

 

There is also another view.

That Peter is the "Rock" but that he was in fact representative of all the Apostles. Ephes. 2:20
" built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." which is generally understood to mean that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church (Referring to their writings, teachings AKA..New Testament) while Jesus is both the Builder and the Cornerstone.

 

If you look at the gospel of Matthew, the first reference to Peter (ch. 4) is as "Simon who is called Peter". Not was called Peter. The first readers of the gospels would know Simon bar Jona as Peter, so the gospel writers had to identify that the man who they were writing about, who had been known during Christ's early ministry as Simon, was the same man the readers now knew as Peter. Simon was not known as Peter until Jesus gave him that name.

 

I think that Catholics have so many books that the Bible gets lost among them. They don't beleive what they read with their own eyes!!

They have to make it fit in with all the other doctrine of "The Church".

Have a good day!!

Tam

 

If this refers to my comments on Simon's change to Peter, the understanding that Christ gave Simon the new name of Peter is not exclusively Catholic (or Orthodox, you people are forever ignoring the Orthodox Church).

Here are a few sites I googled up, all which say that Christ gave the name Peter to Simon:

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/peter.htm

http://www.reformed.com/pub/life/life_20.htm

Neither of these, as far as I can tell, is Catholic or Orthodox, but both agree that Jesus bestowed the name Peter upon Simon. So please don't try and turn this into a Catholic (& Orthodox) vs. Protestant or "bible-believing" debate, because it isn't.

Here, BTW, is the key text from the reformed.com site. It says exactly what I said about why Simon was referred to as Simon Peter before Matthew 16:18.

John tells us that Andrew went in search of Simon Peter. When he wrote the Gospel he was looking back a number of years and referred to Simon by the name which would be familiar to his readers. In the historical account Simon had not yet been named Peter, but this was the name by which he was known to the Church. His new name had become so intimately associated with him that he was probably not well known as Simon, and John had to clarify the account by telling his readers who this Simon was.

 

No Mike, that post wasn't just to you. It was to all the people who insist that Peter was the first pope. Which is really what the discussion is about!!

And as for this:


John tells us that Andrew went in search of Simon Peter. When he wrote the Gospel he was looking back a number of years and referred to Simon by the name which would be familiar to his readers. In the historical account Simon had not yet been named Peter, but this was the name by which he was known to the Church. His new name had become so intimately associated with him that he was probably not well known as Simon, and John had to clarify the account by telling his readers who this Simon was.

That is someones opinion. I do not see it anywhere in scripture. But no matter, I know that I will not convince anyone to see it the way I do, so I will leave it to you and the others to live in your world, the way you want to see it! (but I just had to try)

Anyway, we will all see where we were wrong and where we were right when we get to heaven(including me).

Peace,

Tam

 

I have been reading the posts about Peter being THE rock. Personally, I agree and believe what Singing Cop wrote in his post.

What I was wondering about is that no where have I read that Peter was called Holy Father. All popes are called the Holy Father. If Peter is indeed the first pope of the church, how come it isn't written in the Bible that he was to be addressed as the Holy Father?

 

Actually, Jesus used different words in this sentence. He said that Peter was (little) stone and upon this (Mountain) ROCK (the confession that Jesus was the Christ) Jesus would build his church. He is not making Peter the earthly head of the church - nor is any man the earthly head of the church. Jesus Christ is the only head of the church. The pope, or any other man, is not my substitute for Christ on earth.

 

There hasn't been a significant leader in the history of the world that wasn't hated by some. And to compare his assassination attempt by one man to the kind of persecution Christ and his followers endured (not by a few lunatics, but by the religious and political establishment) is absurd. The pope is the head of the religious establishment.

Did you see or read about his funeral? There hasn't been a more diverse or powerful collection of political and religious leaders at someone's funeral since perhaps the history of the world! Who was at Christ's funeral? Practically no one!

I just don't see any real similarities between Christ (or Peter) and the pope. The pope is on the other end of the spectrum.

 

You have to prove that this difference existed in the Greek of the NT writers. I have read that it did not exist; that it only existed in earlier Greek poetry but that the difference had disappeared by the time of Christ.

Further, as Kathryn posted, we have evidence that Christ was speaking in Aramaic ("bar-Jona"), not Greek. If Christ had indeed used the same word in both cases, what would have been the proper Greek translation of "thou art rock, and upon this rock..."? If the proper translation, according to correct Greek useage, would have involved using both "petros" and "petra", then your argument requires that it was impossible to translate Christ's meaning (kepha - kepha) accurately into Greek. That is simply not believable. </font>[/QUOTE]The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write in Greek and he inspired Matthew to use two different words as has already been pointed out. One word means piece of stone - pebble. And the other means mass of stone - mountain. I'm sure the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when He inspired Matthew to write using different words.

 

First you'll need to prove that these two words actually did have these different meanings in the Koine Greek of the first century.

What your argument really says is that, if the Holy Spirit had wanted to use the same word for petros and petra, the very structure of the Greek language would have prevented Him. Tell me, then, how one would say to a man, in the Greek of the first century, "you are a large rock, and upon this large rock..."

 

Why don't we just give them the Catholic interpretation and say "Ok, Christ appointed Peter as the rock and the leader of the Church on earth". Let's just give it to them. We're not getting anywhere with this argument on what was the rock the Church was to be built on.

Now, would you any of you care to tell me just how these popes are in any way worthy to occupy that same position held by Christ and Peter? How do they fit the biblical description?

As I stated earlier,Christ and Peter were both rejected by the religious establishment and certainly held no high and pompous position among men. Christ didn't even allow himself to be called "Father", so why in the world should we call ANY man by that title?

The popes, by contrast, live in grand palaces, parade before the world in their grand attire and are called "Holy Father" by their followers and even many outside of the Roman church.

 

Don’t Baptist believe in giving “double honor” to their elders and pastors who rule well, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching? The first Christians were taught to give this kind of honor, according to St. Paul in Holy Scripture.

[ April 12, 2005, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

"on this Rock..."


To say that "This Rock" is Peter is kind of like saying: "other sheep I have which are not of this fold" is referring to Joseph Smith Jr. and Company--i.e. a foundational scripture for the LDS.

Salvation becomes a complicated, legalistic system of works; and grace is no more grace.

If one takes "the whole counsel of God" the above interpretations become "private interpretations", i.e. OUT OF CONTEXT--which is exactly what they are.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The Papacy has been dreadfully guilty of turning peoples hearts from God to a man. Peter never desired to do this. If Peter was a "pope", then what was Paul? He never took a backseat to any other apostle--not even Peter. Will a Catholic please explain this to us?

Was Peter over Paul or not?

 

Sorry, was bothered by the blatant factual error here. Check your Greek text (any one of them) and you will notice in Matthew 16.19 that Christ used "soi" [masc. dat. singular second person personal pronoun] - "to you (Peter)...." In fact, all the verbs are second person singular (i.e. - to Peter).

Now, I don't believe the Pope sits in Peter's seat... that is a perversion of this passage and others. Other people made cogent points about calling men Father. By no means do I support Roman Catholicism. Far from it!! But you are not going to convince an RC of his error if you are going to use outdated, factually incorrect arguments which Catholic theologians will rightly destroy.

If you want other people to be honest and Biblical in their arguments, then you need to be so as well.

 

test post

 

Here is the scripture you are referencing. It is in the Bible, so whether the Baptists believe it or not, we are instructed to do so.

BUT, that is not what we are talking about, There is a vast difference between "honor" and "revere", and what most Catholics do is to revere the pope rather than honor him. In fact, many non-Catholics (Baptists included) revere their own pastors or some other religious leader more than they ought.

How hard is that to understand? Jesus understood that we have this terrible habit of elevating certain men we perceive as having some special connection to God to a position of "reverence". We give these men the job of speaking to and hearing God for us. This was the system of the Old Testament. But upon Christ's death, He inaugurated a new covenantwhereby we have direct access to the Father. Not some human pope, priest or pastor, but our awesome Heavenly Father!

What an awesome privelige we have as children of God Most High!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, let us not forsake this wonderful privelige we have to commune directly with our Father God. Let us not provoke Him to jealousy by calling anyone other than Him "Father" or by putting our hope in some extraordinary man. Encounters with extraordinary men may tickle our emotions, but only direct communion with our true Heavenly Father can satisfy our soul.