TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

The word rock is used 142 times in the Bible...... And it refers to Jesus/God as being the Rock!

In Cor 10:1-4 Paul says that they 'drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ

Psalm 18-31 "For who is God, but the Lord? And who is the rock, except our God"

Psalm 18:46 "My rock, and exalted be the God of my salvation"

Psalm 62:2 "He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress, I shall not be greatly shaken"

Deut 32:4 "The Rock, his work is perfect , For all his ways are justice"

1 Sam. 2:2 "There is none holy as Jehovah; For there is none besides thee, Neither is there any rock like our God"

Psalm 18:2 "The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength , in whom I will trust,
my buckler , and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower."

Psalm 144 This Psalm begins with a call to praise the Lord, "who is my rock"

2 Sam 22:2 And he said , the Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer

2 Sam 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me , He that ruleth over men must be just,
ruling in the fear of God

Mat 16:16-18 Simon Peter answered, " you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God "
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and
and blood, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.


The rock in verse 18 refers back to verse 16, that Jesus is the Messiah, and upon the Message of the Messiah, Jesus Christ will his church be built. The church made up of those that have believed and accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. I don't believe that in this one and only verse would the rock refer to Peter as the Catholics do. In order to verify the meaning of a verse, we use other verses to back it up. The Catholic Church uses this one verse to prove that their church began here. It would seem strange that the meaning of the word rock would mean Peter in this one verse, when it means Jesus/God in all of the others.

bahmer

Amen and Amen well stated thanks for this listing.

pafret Loc: Northeast

So, instead of reading the words of God, as He spoke them, we should find other verses to interpret what He meant so it fits our opinion. Sounds very Protestant to me!

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

Good afternoon Pafret!

No that’s not what I meant! I was taught in Bible Study to compare other scriptures in order to help interpret a verse.
That is reading and verifying God’s word in my very small Baptist world.

I created this thread for discussion and to share how we derive at our beliefs! Instead of insulting innuendos, please share your beliefs. I’m not a Protestant, I’m an Evangelical!

My question is ........ I quoted several verses that it was clear that the Rock is God/Jesus or it is actually stated the Rock was said to be GOD OR Jesus. The Catholic Church is based on that one verse, dependent upon Peter being the rock, at least that’s what I read. Let me clear! I’m not a theologian or a scholar, I have a high school education and only started seriously studying the Bible later in life. I find it strange that the whole Creation of the Catholic Church depends on one word in only one verse. The verse doesn’t even make sense if you replace the word Rock with Peter. In order for Peter to be the first Pope would he not have not had differential treatment by Jesus. I don’t see that anywhere. Would there not be more than just that one verse for all to completely understand who Peter was and his role in the first Church of Christ? I would love to hear your explanation!





...

pafret Loc: Northeast

This is a case where the Biblical verses can lead you to an erroneous conclusion. The verses you cited mean essentially what you said however the key is that single passage. The crux of the argument is that the language used by Christ was Aramaic and in Aramaic Petras means Rock, so Christ names Simon as Petras (Peter) and says upon this rock meaning Simon, who he has just designated as rock, I will build my church. It is late in the evening or I would look up the extended argument to make sure I have it right.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

And Jesus answered and said unto him,.... Not waiting for any other declaration from them; but taking this to be the sense of them all, he said,

blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona, or son of Jona, or Jonas, as in Joh 1:42. His father's name was Jonah, whence he was so called: so we read {i} of R. Bo bar Jonah, and of a Rabbi of this very name {k}, ר שמעון בר יונא, Rabbi Simeon bar Jona; for Simon and Simeon are one, and the same name. Some read it Bar Joanna, the same with John; but the common reading is best; Bar Jona signifies "the son of a dove", and Bar Joanna signifies "the son of one that is gracious".

Our Lord, by this appellation, puts Peter in mind of his birth and parentage, but does not pronounce him blessed on that account: no true blessedness comes by natural descent;... though he was Bar Jona, the son of a dove, and his father might be a good man, and answer to his name, and be of a dove like spirit; ... and though he might be, according to the other reading, Bar Joanna, or the son of a gracious man, yet grace was not communicated to him thereby; for he was not "born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God", John 1:13.

He was a blessed man, not by his first, but by his second birth; and the reason why our Lord makes mention of his father, is to observe to him, that he was the son of a mean man, and had had, but a mean education, and therefore his blessedness was not of nature, but of grace, and this branch of it in particular; the knowledge he had of the Messiah, was not owing to his earthly father, or to the advantage of an education, but to the revelation he had from Christ's Father which is in heaven, as is hereafter affirmed.

He is pronounced "blessed", as having a true knowledge of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, whom to know is life eternal; and all such as he are so, appear to be the favourites of God, to have an interest in Christ and in all the blessings of his grace; are justified by his righteousness, pardoned through his blood, are accepted in him, have communion with Father, Son, and Spirit, and shall live eternally with them hereafter.

For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee: nothing is more frequent to be met with in Jewish writings, than the phrase of "flesh and blood", as designing men in distinction from God: so the first man is said {l} to be

"the workmanship of the blessed God, and not the workmanship דבשר ודם, "of flesh and blood".''

Again {m}, בשר ודם, "flesh and blood", who knows not the times and seasons, c. but the holy, blessed God, who knows the times and seasons, c. ... accordingly, the sense here is, that this excellent confession of faith, which Peter had delivered, was not revealed unto him, nor taught him by any mere man... nor did he attain to the knowledge of what is expressed in it, by the dint of nature, by the strength of carnal reason, or the force of his own capacity and abilities:

but my Father which is in heaven; from whom both the external and internal revelation of such truths come; though not to the exclusion of the Son, by whose revelation the Gospel is taught, and received; nor of the Holy Ghost, who is a Spirit of wisdom and revelation, but in opposition to, and distinction from any mere creature whatever. Neither the Gospel, nor any part of it, is an human device or discovery; it is not after man, nor according to the carnal reason of man; it is above the most exalted and refined reason of men; it has in it what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man to conceive of: its truths are the deep things of God, which the Spirit of God searches and reveals: and which men, left to the light of nature, and force of reason, must have been for ever ignorant of

And I say also unto thee,.... Either besides what he had already said concerning his happiness; or, as the father had revealed something great and valuable, so likewise would he; or inasmuch as he had freely said and declared who, and what he was, in like manner he also would say what Peter was, thou art Peter: intimating, that he was rightly called Peter, or Cephas, by him, when he first became a follower of him, Mt 4:18, which words signify the same thing, a rock, or stone; because of his firmness and solidity, and because he was laid upon the sure foundation, and built on the rock Christ, and was a very fit stone to be laid in the spiritual building. The aptness of this name to him is easy to be seen in his full assurance of faith, as to the person of Christ, and his free, open, and undaunted confession of him.

And upon this rock will I build my church: by the church, is meant, not an edifice of wood, stones, c. but an assembly, and congregation of men ... not a disorderly, tumultuous assembly, in which sense this word is sometimes taken; nor does it design the faithful of a family, ...; nor a particular congregated church, but the elect of God, the general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven; and especially such of them as were to be gathered in, and built on Christ, from among the Jews and Gentiles.

The materials of this building are such, as are by nature no better, or more fit for it, than others: these stones originally lie in the same quarry with others; they are singled out, and separated from the rest, according to the sovereign will of God, by powerful and efficacious grace; and are broken and hewn by the Spirit of God, under the ministry of the word, and are, by him, made living stones; and being holy and spiritual persons, are built up a spiritual house: and these are the only persons which make up the true and invisible church of Christ in the issue, and are only fit to be members of the visible church; and all such ought to be in a Gospel church state, and partake of the privileges of it: these materials are of different sorts, and have a different place, and have a different usefulness in this building; some are only as common stones, and timber; others are as pillars, beams, and rafters; and all are useful and serviceable; and being put, and knit together, grow up as an holy temple to the Lord: and are called, by Christ, "my" church, because given him by the Father; and he has purchased them with his own blood; are built by him, and on him; inhabited by him, and of whom he is the head, king, and governor; though not to the exclusion of the Father, whose house they also are; nor of the Spirit, who dwells in them, as in his temple.

This church Christ promises to "build". Though his ministers are builders, they are but under builders; they are qualified, employed, directed, encouraged, and succeeded by him; he is the wise, able, and chief master builder. This act of building seems to have a special regard to the conversion of God's elect, both among Jews and Gentiles, particularly the latter; and to the daily conversions of them in all ages; and to the building up of saints in faith and holiness; each of which will more manifestly appear in the latter day; and are both generally effected through the word, and ordinances, as means, the Spirit of Christ blessing them. By the rock on which Christ builds his church, is meant, not the person of Peter; for Christ does not say, upon thee Peter, but upon this rock, referring to something distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone; and he is so called because of his trust and confidence in the Lord, on whom he was built; but not because he was the foundation on which any others, and especially the whole church, were built: it is true, he may be called the foundation, as the rest of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are, Eph 2:20 without any distinction from them, and preference to them; they and he agreeing in laying doctrinally and ministerially Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope, but not in such sense as he is; neither he, nor they, are the foundation on which the church is built, which is Christ, and him only.

Moreover, what is said to Peter in these, and the following words, is not said to him personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is designed for them, as well as him, as appears by comparing them with Mt 18:18. As he spoke in the name of them all, to Christ; so Christ spake to him, including them all.

Peter had no preeminence over the rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted; nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ, who often showed his resentment at such a spirit and conduct, whenever there was any appearance of it in any of them; see Mt 18: ... not to mention other infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock: and, after all, what is this to the pope of Rome, who is no successor of Peter's?

Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office; nor was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but here, by the rock, is meant, 1) either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or 2) rather Christ himself, who points, as it were, with his finger to himself, and whom Peter had made such a glorious confession of; and who was prefigured by the rock the Israelites drank water out of in the wilderness; ... and is the one and only foundation of his church and people, and on whom their security, salvation, and happiness entirely depend. Christ is a rock that is higher than they, where they find safety in times of distress, and the shadow of which is refreshing to them;... he is the rock of ages, in whom is everlasting strength; and is the sure, firm, and everlasting foundation on which the church, and all true believers, are laid: he is the foundation of their faith, and hope, and everlasting happiness, and will ever continue; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Jews speak of the gates of hell: sometimes of the gate of hell, in the singular number {p}; and sometimes of the gates of hell, in the plural number. They say {q}, that

"Mnhygl vy Myxtp hvlv, "hell has three gates", one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem.''

They talk {r} of

"an angel that is appointed על תרעי דגיהנם, "over the gates of hell", whose name is Samriel; who has three keys in his hands, and opens three doors.''

And elsewhere {s} they say, that

"he that is appointed over hell his name is Dumah, and many myriads of destroying angels are with him, and he stands
על פתחא דגיהנם, "at the gate of hell"; and all those that keep the holy covenant in this world, he has no power to bring them in.''

Our Lord may allude to these notions of the Jews, and his sense be, that all the infernal principalities and powers, with all their united cunning and strength, will never be able to extirpate his Gospel, to destroy his interest, to demolish his church in general, or ruin anyone particular soul that is built upon him. Again, the gates of "Hades", or hell, sometimes seem to design no other than the gates of death, and the grave, and persons going into the state of death; see Job 38:17 where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and then the sense is, that neither death, nor the grave, shall finally, and totally prevail over the people of God, and members of Christ; but they shall be raised out of such a state, and live gloriously with him for ever. By it here is not meant Peter himself;... but rather, it designs the doctrine Peter made a confession of; which, though it may be opposed by hell and earth, by Satan, and his emissaries, by the open force of persecutors, and the secret fraud of heretics, it may be brought into contempt by the scandalous lives of professors; and though the true professors of it may die off, yet truth itself always lives, and defies the power of death, and the grave: or else the church in general is meant, and every true believer.

These words do not ascertain the continuance of anyone particular congregated church, but secures the church universal, which will continue as long as the sun and moon endure, and the perseverance of everyone of God's elect; and assure that death, and the grave, shall not always have the dominion over the saints, but that they shall be rescued from them. Once more refer to Christ the rock, who, though he was brought to the dust of death, by the means of Satan, and the powers of darkness, yet to the ruin of him that had the power of death; and though death, and the grave, had power over him for a while, yet could not hold him; he rose victorious over them, and ever lives, having the keys of hell and death, to open the gates thereof, and let his people out when he thinks fit.

{p} T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 39. 1. Succa, fol. 32. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 84. 1. {q} T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. Menasseh ben Israel, Nishmat Chayim, fol, 33. 1, 2. {r} Zohar in Gen. fol. 47. 4. {s} Ib. fol. 7. 1.; Gill's Exposition

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

It sounds like the instructions of God to me:

The Bible is God’s Word. But some of the interpretations derived from it are not. There are many cults and Christian groups that use the Bible - claiming their interpretations are correct. Too often, however, the interpretations not only differ dramatically but are clearly contradictory. This does not mean that the Bible is a confusing document. Rather, the problem lies in those who interpret and the methods they use.

We need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God’s Word.

Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God’s word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. This does not mean that accurate understanding of God’s Word is impossible. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason. Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God’s Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God’s word means and how to apply it.

On the human level, to lessen the errors that come in our interpretations, we need to look at some basic biblical interpretive methods.

The following principles are guidelines for examining a passage. They are not exhaustive nor are they set in concrete.

Who wrote/spoke the passage and to whom was it addressed?
What does the passage say?
Are there any words or phrases in the passage that need to be examined?
What is the immediate context?
What is the broader context in the chapter and book?
What are the related verses to the passage’s subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage?
What is the historical and cultural background?
What do I conclude about the passage?
Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of Scripture and others who have studied the passage?
What have I learned and what must I apply to my life?

Peter and the Rock. Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." The word, "Peter," is 'petros' in the Greek. The word, "rock," is 'petra.' Petros is masculine and means a small rock. Petra is feminine and means a large rock. The feminine, "petra," occurs four times in the Greek New Testament: Matthew 16:18, 27:60, 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Pet. 2:8. Aside from the text in question (Matt. 16:18), we see that in each of the other occurrences, petra refers to a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and is also 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! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we in Matthew. 16:18?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

pafret: The Aramaic "kepa" is the common translation of Greek lithos, as well as being the translation of petros, which is Peter's name, and generally indicates a smaller, movable rock or stone.

Shua is more often the translation of "petra," and indicates a rock mass, or bedrock, and is the more likely Aramaic word to indicate the rock upon which Christ is building his Church.

Thus, this old (grasping at straws) argument of Rome is weak and untenable, and most assuredly not of the quality upon which to base one's faith, or the validity of such an office as the papacy.

This argument is secondary anyway, and not required, as there is more than ample evidence that 1) Jesus was not speaking in Aramaic, and 2) the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic, but in Koine (common) Greek.

Matthew 16:16-18:

(v. 16) Simon Peter answered 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

(v. 17) Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in heaven.

(v. 18) And I tell you that you are Peter ('petros') and on this rock ('petra') I will build My church I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.' "

OUR LORD'S FIRST MENTION OF HIS CHURCH: 'ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH'

1) PETER RECEIVES THE NAME OF 'PETROS' A SMALL THROWING SIZED ROCK, FROM OUR LORD

"And I tell you that you are Peter..." = "petros", (masc.) = pebble, throwing size rock

2) THE STATEMENT 'YOU ARE THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD' RECEIVES THE SYMBOL OF 'PETRA' TO SIGNIFY THAT THE FOUNDATION STONE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF

"and on this rock" = "petra", (fem.) = huge size rock, material of which a cliffside is made up of, foundation stone] ...I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

[Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, N.J., 1971, p. 302]:

"Petra... denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of sure foundation.... Rev. 6:15, 16 cp. Is. 2:19 ff.; Hos 10:8); Luke 8:6, 13, used illustratively; 1 Cor 10:4 (twice), figuratively of Christ; in Rom 9:33 and 1 Pet 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the Apostle, is clear."

[Compare http://eliyah.com/lexicon.html

"4073 petra {pet'-ra} from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f AV - rock 16; 16 1) a rock, cliff or ledge 1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground 1b) a rock, a large stone 1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

"4074 Petros {pet'-ros} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 6:100,835; n pr m AV - Peter 161, stone 1; 162 Peter = "a rock or a stone" 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus"


Pafret, If you are thinking of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s name in the New Testament,” Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament; 1979; Fitzmyer suggests that in Aramaic Jesus said: antah hu Kepha we’al kepha den ebneh… (You are Kepha [Cephas], and on this kepha [rock] I will build…)...

The word כֵּפָא (kepha). The only difference between Kepha and kepha in Fitzmyer’s reconstruction is the capitalization of the former. This distinction, however, does not exist in Aramaic, since in Aramaic there are no capital letters.

Facts:

1. All of the canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—were written in Greek.

2. As the author of the gospel of Luke states in his prologue, many written accounts of Jesus’
life already were in circulation.

3. The early church fathers testify that Matthew wrote “the words of Jesus” in “Hebrew” (not Aramaic).

Those are the bare facts of the matter.

Jerusalem School Perspective

The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research has arrived at two conclusions that serve as
working hypotheses for their research:

• An account of Jesus’ life was written in Hebrew, probably by one of Jesus’ original disciples.

• One or more of the sources used by the writers of the synoptic gospels is derived from a
Greek translation of that Hebrew account.

Even the scholars of the Jerusalem School do not claim that the gospels of Matthew, Mark and
Luke were originally written in Hebrew. They contend only that the authors of the synoptic
gospels used sources that were derived from an earlier Hebrew gospel. In fact, not every part
of the synoptic gospels shows Semitic influence. Many parts, such as the prologue to Luke’s
gospel, show little or no Semitic influence.

“The New Testament

When Paul spoke to the Roman commander, he used Greek (Acts 21:37). When he addressed the people,
however, he spoke to them "in the Hebrew language" (Acts 21:40).

“Hebrew-speakers commonly referred to Jews as yisrael, Israel, in contrast to Ioudaioi, Jews used by Greek
speakers and yehuda’in, Jews used by Aramaic-speakers.
In literary works written in Hebrew, Jews refer to
themselves as yisrael, Israel or bene yisrael, sons of Israel, while non-Jews refer to Jews using the Aramaicized
yehuda’in, Jews.


“When the author of the Book of Acts refers to Jews he normally uses the term Ioudaioi, Jews. However, when
he relates the words of Jesus or of Peter and his companions, he has them refer to Jews as yisrael, Israel
(Acts 1:6; 2:22; 2:36; 3:12; 4:10; 9:15). The author of the Book of Acts also relates that Rabban Gamaliel
addressed the Sanhedrin as "Men of Israel" (5:35).

“Jesus probably spoke Hebrew within the circle of his disciples, and since the thousands of parables which have survived in rabbinic literature are all in Hebrew, no doubt he likewise told his parables in Hebrew.

Many scholars have seen Jesus’ words to Jairus’ twelve-year-old daughter, "Talitha kumi" (Mk. 5:41), as proof that he spoke Aramaic. Yet, even if Jesus spoke to her in Hebrew, he could have said "Talitha kumi." One must not forget that many Aramaic words in various forms found their way into Hebrew in the Second Temple period. The command to "get up" kumi is the same word in Hebrew and Aramaic. . .

“Conclusion

Hebrew was certainly the language of instruction in schools, as well as the language of prayer and Torah reading. The language of instruction in the house of study also most certainly was Hebrew, and this was likely the case regarding instruction in the synagogue. It would seem that Hebrew was spoken in the marketplaces of Jerusalem (Jerusalem Talmud, Pesahim 37d), but there is not enough information to determine whether this also was the case in other cities.

It is not impossible that there were religiously uneducated people who did not understand Hebrew and were conversant only in Aramaic. There is some evidence for this linguistic phenomenon beginning in the second century C.E., but it is unlikely that such was the case in the first century.

Although the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel in the time of Jesus knew Aramaic and used it in their contacts with the ordinary, non-Jewish residents, Hebrew was their first or native language. It is especially clear that in enlightened circles such as those of Jesus and his disciples, Hebrew was the dominant spoken language.
-“Spoken Languages in the Time of Jesus,” Safrai, Shmuel

“Mishnaic Hebrew

Either Hebrew or Aramaic was used in the synagogue or at other communal gatherings, but there are a number of questions concerning the relationship of these two languages in the land of Israel. The Torah and Prophets were undoubtedly read in Hebrew, as were prayers, but what was the language of Torah instruction in the synagogue? In what language did people speak in the marketplace and within the family circle? In which tongue did the sages address their students? Was there a difference between Judea and Galilee?


“Most scholars since the beginning of the nineteenth century have concluded that Aramaic was the spoken language of the land of Israel during the Second Temple period. Even when scribes of that period or later attest that they wrote or transmitted traditions in Hebrew, scholars have persisted in claiming that this "Hebrew" was actually some type of Aramaic dialect then prevalent among the Jews of the land. It has even been claimed that the Hebrew in which the Mishnah was written was an artificial language of the bet midrash, house of study, which was a translation from Aramaic, or at the very least heavily influenced by Aramaic.

“However, some seventy years ago a number of Jewish scholars in Palestine (later the State of Israel) began to see that the Hebrew of the Mishnah had been a living and vibrant language, spoken in the house of study, synagogue, on the street and at home. Mishnaic Hebrew does not deal only with matters of religion, but mentions, for instance, the names of dozens of implements used at the time, and records thousands of events and sayings about mundane, secular aspects of life. . .

“The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the documents from the period of the Bar-Kochba revolt (132–135 C.E.) conclusively settled the question of whether Mishnaic Hebrew had been an artificial or a living language. Hymns, prayers and biblical works written in Hebrew were discovered, as well as documents composed in the Mishnaic Hebrew dialect. Among them were letters containing Hebrew slang and abbreviated Hebrew forms characteristic of everyday speech . . .

“Rabbinic Literature

When the Jewish writers of the Second Temple period referred to Hebrew, they meant Hebrew and not Aramaic. They did not confuse the two languages, but distinguished quite clearly between Hebrew and Aramaic, referring to the latter either as "Aramaic," "targum" or "Syriac" (sursit). The sages also clearly differentiated between the Hebrew and Aramaic sections of the Bible. ..

“One cannot fulfill the obligation of reading from the Torah scroll unless the text is written in square script in
Hebrew and in a book [some manuscripts read "on parchment"] and in ink. (Tosefta, Megillah 2:6)

In other words, the Torah scroll must be written in square Hebrew script and not in the old archaic Hebrew script, nor in Aramaic. . . (NOTE: Aramaic also includes the usage of “Hebrew” square script which is called in Hebrew, “Ktav Asshurim,” i.e “Assyrian Letters” –JJD)

“II Kings 18 tells of the Assyrian general Rabshakeh’s advance on Jerusalem and his attempt to persuade the
beleaguered inhabitants of the city to surrender. The leaders of Jerusalem requested that he speak Aramaic and "not the language of Judea" so that the rest of the city’s inhabitants would not understand (v. 26). Josephus relates the story in the following manner:

“As Rabshakeh spoke these words in Hebrew, with which language he was familiar, Eliakim was afraid that the people might overhear them and be thrown into consternation, and he asked him to speak in suristi, [Syriac, i.e., Aramaic]. (Antiquities 10:8)

bahmer

Amen and Amen WOW you sure cleared that up for me thanks.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Good morning, Bahmer, - Thanks,

Actually I'm still looking for additional info on that old RC Aramaic diversion, contained in several reference books,
one of which I will probably literally stumble over momentarily.

Have a blessed week-end.

bahmer

And you as well.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Good morning, TexaCan,

Your research is inspiring and intellectually enlightening. Thanks.

Even their one verse doesn't hold up when examined by God's light.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

pafret,

This is one more old fraudulent deception authored by the Father of lies, one of many claims by Rome, all have been disproven.


The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church.

Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel.

If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.

1. The Greek text is the inspired original of the New Testament. No Aramaic underlying text is extant. Though there are Syriac/Aramaic translations of these original Greek texts they cannot be relied upon to accurately represent any supposed original Aramaic usage. They are merely uninspired translations of the original Greek text and may or may not represent any Aramaic/Syriac original.

2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.
Petros, the name given to the Apostle
Petra, the word used for rock
Rome says that "Peter" (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But...

3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.
According to Liddell and Scott:
Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...
Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288
E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"
cf. Pl. Lg. 843a
X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."
S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"
Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark
(the usual prose word is lithos)"
from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)

NOTE: Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.&quot So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.

Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone.

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.
Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

4. The wording of Matt. 16:18 uses two different Greek words. If Jesus was referring the second word to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (using the masculine gender in the dative case) the same word as "Petros." But what he said was "Epi taute te petra" using Petra, a different Greek word.

5. The usage of two different words in the inspired Greek original, if representing an Aramaic original (which is in no case certain) would seem to point to the usage of two separate Aramaic words in this passage.

6. The Peshitta Syriac translation of the New Testament in Matthew 16:18 uses kepha' for both Greek words petros and petra. Is this accurate, or could it be a mistranslation of the original Greek Text?

7. The proper translation of Petros is Ke'pha'. On this we have the authority of the Word of God itself in the Greek original of the New Testament, where the name "Ke'pha" (in the English Bible "Cephas&quot is six times given as the Aramaic equivalent to Petros for the name of Simon bar Jonas. (John 1:42; 1Corinthians1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 2:9) So, we can say, based upon the authority of the original Greek of the New Testament that Petros, the name given to Simon bar Jona by the Lord Jesus (John 1:42) is the correct translation of the Aramaic/Syriac word Ke'pha'. Greek: Petros = Aramaic: Ke'pha' ("Cephas&quot

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'?
There is nowhere in the Greek New Testament where the word Ke'pha' is given as the correct translation of the Greek word Petra. In order to determine the Syriac/Aramaic word which best translates the Greek word Petra we will have to look at the translations of the Greek New Testament which were made in the first five centuries of the Christian Church to determine how the Greek word Petra was understood.
Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.
PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:
Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac
9 times by the word SHU`A' ,
6 times by the word KE'PHA' and
1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'
Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:
7 times by the word SHU`A'
(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)
3 times by the word KE'PHA'
(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)
Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:
[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.
[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable)
[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.
In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."
KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.
The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

As LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry, this shows that the definition of KE'PHA' as "a stone" is correct. The Syriac KE'PHA' is equivalent to the Greek LITHOS, a movable stone.
KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.


KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

The Syriac word SHU`A' is NEVER used to translate the Greek word LITHOS.
Because a LITHOS is NOT a large massive rock, but a SHU`A' is.

The Syriac KE'PHA' is correctly used to translate the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS because these are movable stones.

9. The fact that the Greek text of the New Testament uses two separate Greek words in the passage [Matthew 16:18] indicates that any underlying Aramaic/Syriac original (if there was one, AND THIS IS FAR FROM PROVEN) also must have used two separate words.

Conclusion:

a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

b. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE'PHA' for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA.

c. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation
and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language.

d. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"

bahmer

Amen and Amen boy I am learning a lot just hope my old mind can retain it.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

Good morning to you!

Thank you for your kindness. I opened this thread because Doc and Radiance continually quotes this verse of their proof of the beginning of the Catholic Church. I found it amazing that this complete religion is based on one verse, actually, one word and their interpretation of that word.

My knowledge and faith comes from the Bible and only the Bible. I have only a high school education and have only seriously studied the Bible later in life, so I know my limitations when conversing with the ‘big boys’!!!!
Sometimes the most obvious or most quoted points or scriptures are just taken for granted or ignored. In this case, it doesn’t look like they are interested in discussing the most definitive verse of 1,986 years. I was looking forward to an actual adult discussion. I watched a couple of discussions or debates on the John Ankerberg and they are always respectful, very passionate and always ends with a handshake! I would love to see that happen here.

For me, the Bible is many books in one! It is a science book, a history book, a book of passionate love stories, a futuristic book, a supernatural book with ghosts,mind readers, giants, talking mules and more! How much more exciting can you get that! But it is ultimately about Jesus Christ our Savior and his story of the ultimate gift of life that is available for each and every one of us! It is about his birth, his journey to choose 12 Apostles that would follow him and teach his chosen people that He was the Son Of God-Jesus Christ ! The Bible is about his death on the cross and his resurrection 3 days later, his revealed himself to many during the 40 days before his ascension to sit on the right side of God the Father. After his ascension, Jesus revealed himself to Paul! Paul who was to go to the world and reveal the mystery that was revealed to him by Jesus Christ! Romans 16:25 At the end of Peter’s life he said this about Paul, “ therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found in him peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these thing, in which some things are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3: 14-16. Paul brought in the Church age or the Dispensation of Grace and will end at the rapture of the church! Charles Ryrie said, “ Grace is God’s benevolence to the undeserving.”

The Bible is about Jesus, not any specific church, not the Catholic, not the Church of Christ , or any other denomination or religion. The only church in the Bible is the Church that all Christians belong to that has accepted his gift of salvation.

This is what I believe by reading and studying the Bible and 10 years in a very dedicated home Bible Study group that required countless hours to answer some very detailed questions by a very seasoned leader who made up her own questions! She will have a special crown to lay at the feet of Jesus Christ!