OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 06:06:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Petros is Aramaic for First Born therefore Jesus does not say Peter is the rock  (Read 9223 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« on: August 23, 2010, 01:49:34 AM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:


Using subtitles to transition from one point to another, I will prove the pun in Mat 16:18 is a Janus Parallelism on PETROS, Please pardon any lack of writing skill.

"Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build"
-hypothetical Aramaic speech of Christ in Mat 16:18

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
and upon this (revelation) THE PETROS (the life giving rock)  I will build my church."


The most parsimonious interpretation is most likely correct.

The ambiguities of Matthew 16:18 vanish when we interpret Jesus’ pun on PETROS historico-grammatically as an Old Testament style double entendre (Janus Parallelism) on an Aramaic/Greek homonym (Aramaic PeTRos / Firstborn ; Greek PETROS / petra / rock). Among competing explanations, this alone achieves maximum parsimony, the universal characteristic of truth. 

What is a Janus Parallelism?

"Janus Parallelism. This type of parallelism hinges on the use of a single word with two different meanings, one of which forms a parallel with what precedes and the other with what follows. Thus, by virtue of a double entendre, the parallelism faces in both directions. An example is Gen 49:26."-Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:157). New York: Doubleday.

   The transliterated PeTRos(firstborn) and PETROS(stone) are spelled the same in Greek, so it is likely the Greek speaking Church would confuse them;  Rome had destroyed Israel's Aramaic speaking culture and everyone familiar with Jewish Aramaic names in the days of Christ had vanished from the church.
   When we test this proposition, the ambiguities of relevant passages are resolved, proving beyond reasonable doubt they did confuse this homonym.


The Aramaic PETROS "Firstborn" and Greek PETROS "Rock" are homonyms

There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". -PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann, translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), p 19, Note 14. 


An Aramaic PETROS resolves the ambiguity of the antecedent

Mathew expressly wrote to exclude PETROS as the antecedent of HOUTOS

   The demonstrative pronoun has Christ leaving direct address (SOI, SU), speaking TO Peter ABOUT "The Rock"---literally "upon this the rock" (KAI EPI TAUTEE TEE PETRA). Usually masculine KAI EPI TOUTOIS (Lev 26:23; 1 Ma 10:42; Sr 32:13; Amo 8:8; Zec 14:18; TOUTW Joh 4:27), its antecedent implied, not supplied by the context (Lev 26:23; Sir 32:13; Amo 8:8 John 4:27).
   By attaching verse 17 to v.18 (KAGW DE SOI) "And I also unto thee", Matthew carried forward the antecedent, italicized as "it" in the KJV, which is feminine being the APOCALUPSIS (revelation) or ALEETHEIA (truth) "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God", that Peter just confessed changing his status. (cf  the Makarism "blessed"; the Aramaic Barjona, see below).
   Therefore, Matthew designed the context to disqualify the masculine PETROS as the antecedent. The article strengthens this disqualification as Jesus is speaking TO Simon ABOUT "The" rock.
   This is corroborated by his including Peter's embarrassment---Jesus "said unto PETROS, Get thee behind me, Satan" (vs. 23); obviously written against PETROS being "the rock", for then Christ built upon Satan.
   This exegesis is consistent with the overriding theme of the context---Jesus' identity (16:13-17,20); While Peter's confession is the occasion for discussing this, he remains a digression Christ quickly leaves, to return, using the short form, to what is important: "tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (Mat 16:20 KJV)"

This is that "saying" upon which Christ built His church--- a parallel use of PETRA:

KJV Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings (LOGOS) of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built (OIKODOMEW) his house upon a rock(PETRA).

PETRA as the rock fountain of life to the dead:
KJV 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros"

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72


The existence of an Aramaic PETROS means the sample considered was too small

"PETROS…Fr. the beginning it was prob. thought of as the Gk. equivalent of the Aramaic Keph Keephas; J 1:42; cf. Mt 16:18"- A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer; University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 654.

 "Probably thought", not "is". The conclusion is a hasty generalization---the sample too small, there are other relevant words, for example, the Aramaic PETROS which in transliterated Greek, is spelled PETROS but has a radically different meaning.

Simon called PETROS before Christ surnamed him Cephas in John 1:42

KJV  John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother. (Joh 1:40 KJV)

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
 18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
 21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
 (Mat 4:17-21 KJV)

Simon "who is called Peter" ( ton legomenon petron), cp Mat 27:17 Jesus "who is called" Christ (ton legomenon christon).

While some argue the present tense describes what was happening as Matthew wrote---"the one commonly called Peter" (now), that is less parsimonous, unhistorical, contrary to accurately describing the event as it happened.

It follows Jesus did not give Simon the name PETROS in John 1:42

When John translates Aramaic into Greek, it is METHERMENEUW, when he explains what the Aramaic means it is HERMENEUW:
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted(HERMENEUW), Master,) where dwellest thou?

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted(METHERMENEUW), the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), A stone.(Joh 1:38-42 KJV)

Compare:

KJV John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. (Joh 9:7 KJV)

Although HERMENEUW can be found outside scripture as "translate," that is not John's usage. It is unhistorical to read into KEPHA what it became later, a proper name. Here it is an epithet, an idiom, not a name; therefore, John would not translate it into a proper name, rather he is interpreting it to be a stone.

It is parsimonous Christ meant  KEPHA as it is found in the Aramaic Targums, and so John chose the Attic Greek "petros" because it means "small stone":

Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies," Aramaic KEPHA Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos; 
Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Aramaic KEPHA; Heb. eben  cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious reward.  [That is, a stone for a bribe, to buy favor].
-"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud  Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic  Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica  Press, NT, 1996], pp. 634-635). 

As KEPHA=PETROS (Attic)=LITHOS (Koine) it follows  Christ called Simon a precious "lively stone" which Simon later applies to the church:

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.(1Pe 2:4-6 KJV)

The imagery is derived from Christ---the Rockmass KEPHA/PETRA, which Moses was to strike once (Ex 17:6; 1 Cor 10:4) for living water to come out…
 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock PETRA that followed them: and that Rock PETRA was Christ. (1Co 10:4 KJV)

Believers are little christs" (CHRISTIANOS), lively stones that figuratively purchase favor from God preaching the immutable truth of Christ's Name---mediating life to all who believe.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (Joh 7:38 KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Joh 3:18 KJV)

Jesus surnamed Simon by putting upon him an epithet

16 And Simon he surnamed (EPITITHEMI)  Peter (PETROS);
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (EPITITHEMI) them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
(Mar 3:16-17 KJV)

Boanerges is an epithet, idiom, not a proper name, hence neither of these men are ever called this name. Jesus put the meaning "of sons of thunder" on the pair… It follows Jesus also put upon Simon a meaning, not a proper name.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus says, "Thou art PETROS," is Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42 where He called him "Cephas".

What meaning did Jesus put upon Simon? Scripture says all who confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, via divine revelation, are born again (Rom 10:8ff; John 1:12; 1 John 4:15). It follows Jesus called Simon "Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ". Context supports this exegesis:

KJV  Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17 KJV)

In this Makarism we find an undeveloped double entendre, rather than writing "Son of Jonah" in Greek (huios Iwna, Joh 1:42 TR), Matthew conveys Jesus’ EPITITHEMI via the epithet BARIWNA---Simon is "blessed" for receiving and proclaiming divine revelation just like Jonah the Prophet (cp Mat 12:39-41; 16:4). Having risen from the dead speaking the Word of Life, Simon is just like him = born again. Compare:
5 The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
 6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
 7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
 8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
 9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.
 10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.
3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
  (Jon 2:5-2:2 KJV)


Only a child of God is given keys to His Kingdom, as Peter was promised the keys then, it follows he was born then.
KJV  Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (Mat 16:19 KJV)

Matthew CONFIRMS Simon is the First (PRWTOS):

 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first (PRWTOS), Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
-Mat 10:2 KJV

As "First Simon" is not followed by "Second Andrew", "Third James" etc... This is not a numbering system.  In addition, the LORD expressly forbade thinking any were PRWTOS in the "Chief" sense:

27 And whosoever will be chief (PRWTOS) among you, let him be your servant: (Mat 20:27 KJV)

Only one likely meaning remains: Simon is the FIRST of the group born of the Gospel of Christ, and Matthew emphasized that by calling Simon "First" and so lists him first.

Peter's confession was unique, the first (PRWTOS) of its kind

Peter's confession was a product of divine revelation of Christ's Name in the heart and mouth hence archetypical of the entire Church (16:17 cp Rom 10:8f)), unlike others which preceded it in time (14:24-33; Mark 6:49-52) but were the product of human emotion and intellect (cf James 2:19f). Observe John doesn't mention a confession when relating the same event (John 6:19-21) and none of these result in a Makarism:

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.  (Joh 1:49-50 KJV)

The parallels between this event and Roman 10:8ff indicate dependence:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:8-10 KJV)

Divine revelation of Jesus' Name is put in Peter's heart and mouth, the word of faith John says is required for eternal life. Peter confessed this publicly, he was the first to do so via divine inspiration.

Corroborating this is Paul's switch from PETROS to KEPHA, in Gal 2:9:

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars -KJV

Evidently Paul switches from PETROS to Cephas in Galatians 2:9 (TR) because PETROS("Firstborn") didn't covey the stone metaphors Paul wanted for his caustic review of "those who seemed to be somewhat…seemed to be pillars", these lamps of fire guiding the people imparted no light to Paul (cp Gal 2:6,9 with Ex 13:21; cf also Berachoth 28b). Peter is both a pillar and a KEPHA stone of grace, a small precious stone benefiting the holder:

Therefore Peter failed both as a pillar and as a stone of grace. Rather than a guiding light to the Gospel of Christ, Peter cowers in fear following followers James failed to guide correctly, into error…even against the vision God gave him! (Ac 10:34). Ironic indeed for a pillar and a kepha.

As would be expected in unsound eclectic texts, the change from Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) to petros (2:7, Cool is purely random, a property not found in Paul's expositions, who arguably had a reason for every word carefully chosen. That contradicts the claim these are accurate copies.

However, in a footnote Professor Cullmann argues for dependence from these texts:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19. 

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.

Implicit in Patristic exegesis is the premise the rock is the divinely revealed truth about Christ
Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick prepared a paper to be delivered at Vatican I (1870), in which he noted that five interpretations of the word "rock" were held in antiquity:
1.     The first declared that the church was built on Peter, endorsed by seventeen fathers.
2.     The second understood the words as referring to all the apostles, Peter being simply the Primate, the opinion of eight fathers.
3.     The third asserted that the words applied to the faith that Peter professed, espoused by forty-four fathers, some of whom are the most important and representative.
4.     The fourth declared that the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the church being built upon him, the view of sixteen fathers.
5.     The fifth understood the term "rock" to apply to the faithful themselves who, by believing in Christ, were made the living stones in the temple of his body, an opinion held by only very few (107–108).- Journal of Biblical apologetics : Volume 3. 2001 (16). Las Vegas, N.V.: Christian Scholar's Press, Inc.. p. 16.

 THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith.-Fragment 92, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
 
"And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. "-John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew LIV.3

"… when Simon Bar Yona {St. Peter} declared that  Our Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God, and on this specific point in FAITH Our Lord Jesus Christ built the Holy Church." -V. Rev. Fr. Boutros Touma Issa, St Ephraim Syriac Orthodox Church

"Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). That the rock spoken of was the faith, not the person of Peter, was a common explanation of the fathers. Owen (Person of Christ, preface) cites the following: "Origen (tractate in Matt. 16) expressly denies the words to be spoken of Peter: ‘If you shall think that the whole church was built on Peter alone, what shall we say of John and each of the apostles? Shall we dare to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter alone? Hilary (Concerning the Trinity 2) says: ‘This is the only immovable foundation; this is the rock of faith confessed by Peter, You are the Son of the living God.’ And Epiphanius (Heresies 39) declares, ‘Upon this rock of assured faith (epi tē petra tautē tēs asphalous pisteōs)  I will build my church.’ ’ One or two more out of Augustine shall close these testimonies (Sermon concerning the Words of the Lord 13): ‘Upon this rock which you have confessed, upon this rock which you have known, saying, You are Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my church, that is, on me myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my church." Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology. "First one-volume edition (3 vols. in 1)"--Jacket. (3rd ed.) (p. 791). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.

PETROS should be added to any list of Aramaic/Hebrew transliterations in the NT---abba; bar; batos; elooi; ephphatha; kokrban; korbanas; lama; mamoonas; maran atha; rhabbi; rhabbouni; rhabitha; rhaka; sabachthani; talitha koum, SIMWN, IAKWBOS, ZEBEDAIOS, IWANNES, BARTHOLOMAIOS, THWMAS, ALPHAIOS, IOUDAS ISKARIOTES (Mat 10:2-4) etc.

39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. (Luk 5:39 KJV)

The old wine accepts "Peter is the Rock" and then argues it does not follow Rome's pope is Peter's successor. Many will resist changing their apologetic. However, it is inefficient to refute a lie after agreeing with it.

The "Peter is the rock" theory is pernicious novelty, not this exegesis.

KJV  1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1Co 4:6 KJV)

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.

END

ADDENDUM

Gates of Hell Symbolize impotence in death.

KJV  Matthew 16:18 ...and the gates of hell (pulai hadou) shall not prevail against it. (Mat 16:18 KJV)

KJV  Isaiah 38:10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave(SHEOL; pulai hadou LXX): I am deprived of the residue of my years. (Isa 38:10 KJV)
Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.  4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.  5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.  6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 

"Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" referring to His promise to build His church upon the immutable Truth He is the Christ the Son of God.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?  21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 

KJV  Psalm 9:13 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death: (Psa 9:13 KJV)

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
 (1Co 15:55-57 KJV)

Ephesians 4:8-13  8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.  9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?  10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Satan and Demons are irrelevant to the Gates of Hell; they fear the entrance into the deep:

28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not…
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
 31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
 32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked. (Luk 8:33 KJV)


This prefigures the involuntary manner in which Satan and crew are driven into the Lake of fire (Rev 20:10), revealing they are bound first (cp Mat. 22:13), illustrated by their involuntarily rushing to their doom, clearly unable to inflict harm upon anyone else, ever again. God rules in hell, not the devil--- if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. (Psa 139:8 KJV)


"Keys of the kingdom of heaven" open door to all of God’s blessings

A "key" opens, grants access:

52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luk 11:52 KJV)

Compare:
R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened.-Ta’anith 2a

Man ratifies and obeys God’s decrees learned once the keys unbind the Presence of God

 "Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."-J.R. Mantey, "The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18."

Peter's new birth precipitated the promise, but it had to wait for the right time:

KJV  Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mat 16:19 KJV)

Will give unto you the keys, then future because Jesus’ glorification then future:

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
 (Joh 7:38-39 KJV)

The time was not yet for veil to be rent:
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (Mat 16:20 KJV)

 "Keys"---plural of majesty.

 Compare key to the entire realm of the dead (Rev 20:13), keys of hell and death. Present also is the idea of Death personified , hell (the unseen realm) swallows his victims (Rev 6:Cool. Christ defeated him and took his "keys":

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev 1:18 KJV)

Death as slayer sends everyone into hell, both good and bad (Gen 37:35; Num 16:30-33; Psa  86:13; Eccl 9:10). A "great gulf" divides this realm, the upper (Eccl 3:21; Luk 16:23) is paradise, third heaven (1 Cor 12:2-4 cp 1 Th 4:14) or "Abraham’s bosom; the lower where sinners are in torments (Luke 16:22-26; cp Rev 20:13-15). As all in Adam die (1 Cor 15:22), there is only one key needed into hell.  Hence, the plural of majesty signifies complete authority over death and his realm. Compare "heavens" Mat 3:2; 2 Cor 5:1; Applied to an object, "Crowns" Zech 9:11; Animal, ("Cattles")"Behemoth" Job 40:15.

This immutable life giving truth Jesus is the Christ, God’s Eternal Son, are the "Keys of the Kingdom" opening Heaven to God's Elect, unbinding all the good God has for them.

END
Alfred Persson

Greetings

We have never met, and I'm not responding to anything you may have written or said.


My name is Alfred Persson, amateur researcher and lay apologist for Christ, aka "LetsObeyChrist".


While researching Mat 16:18 I happened upon earlier German scholarship an Aramaic PETROS meaning "firstborn" existed in Christ's day. That was the missing piece of the puzzle; ambiguity vanished.

Now the veil over Romans 10:8ff  is removed, its Paul's take on Peter's confession in Mat 16:17,  Peter is the first of those who called upon the Name of the LORD, after the Divine Word was gifted to him. No need to go to heaven, to bring God's truth down from above, or travel to the deep, to bring it up from its hiding place, because the God in whom we live and move and have our being, will Himself put the life gushing PETRA in our mouth and in our heart:

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 (Rom 10:6-10 KJV)

To make the PETRA known is why the Bible was written:

KJV John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

4 ...many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Dan 12:4 KJV)

Some have asked why I am sending this...
   I am hoping to replicate my publicizing the Watch Tower Society's use of spiritist Johannes Greber to support their John 1:1 "a god" rendering. (New World Translation)  After I alerted Christian apologists they did this, via email, they made it known to all.

This information is much more important:
1) All religious claim of infallibility is an embarrassment.
2) The grammar expertly conveys the non-verbal content of Jesus' pun, therefore the author was an eyewitness and likely Matthew just as tradition says.
3) Greek Primacy---the Aramaic versions followed the false retranslation of PETROS as Kepha  (except in Joh 1:42 (Old Syriac) Ac 1:13, 1 Pe 1:1, 2 Pe 1:1), therefore these are copies of the Greek texts if my hypothesis is correct.
4) The Textus Receptus Galatians is clearly superior to all eclectic texts--the vacuous switching from Kepha to Petros proof the unproven assumptions undergirding the variant readings in these texts must be unsound. (Added to all the other proofs the Textus Receptus is trustworthy, we have an overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence it is the superior text).

However, by far the greatest benefit of this exegesis is the identification of what precisely makes one a member of the One Holy Universal Church. Divine revelation of the Word of God in the believer's heart, publicly confessed, converts the dead into lively stones that "built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1Pe 2:5 KJV)

It is certain our salvation is a work of God:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10 KJV)


5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (Joh 3:5-7 KJV)




I authored everything not attributed to others and consider my material "COPY LEFT", that is, permission granted for use in the service of our LORD Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of the Father. Please quote accurately.

Email this to others, please!

Peace be to your house!
al

alpersso1@roadrunner.com


How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! (Isa 52:7 KJV)


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2010, 01:55:29 AM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2010, 12:18:11 PM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin

I'm not you.

That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, was revealed to Peter, it is "divine revelation"

NKJ  Matthew 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
 (Mat 16:17 NKJ)

Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, but mostly Aramaic, hence the presence of transliterated Aramaic in the gospels. PETROS exists in Aramaic, and when transliterated into Greek, its spelled PETROS, easily confused with the Greek petros meaning "stone, rock."

I cited Professor Markus Bockmuehl for that, so who I am is irrelevant. Who are you, one who can reason on evidence, or a respecter of persons?

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2010, 12:23:59 PM »

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2010, 12:40:26 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 12:48:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2010, 01:01:21 PM »

Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam.

Let's save ourselves some time here:

Alfred, the Orthodox do not believe that St. Peter the Apostle is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18.  We believe that Peter's declaration of faith is the "rock."

At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

LOL.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:01:40 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2010, 01:11:29 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2010, 01:28:20 PM »

Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam.

Let's save ourselves some time here:

Alfred, the Orthodox do not believe that St. Peter the Apostle is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18.  We believe that Peter's declaration of faith is the "rock."

At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

LOL.

I know. Odd you aren't interested in this subject.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2010, 01:29:43 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2010, 01:32:48 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

Masonism has been exposed, the top levels learn the secret name that resurrects is "Lucifer"

I suggest you repent of Masonisn, its not what you think.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:33:15 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2010, 01:36:51 PM »

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?

I don't recall any counter arguments that were sound, that I couldn't refute.

Why not copy paste the alleged refutation here, and I will answer it.

I am guilty of giving this away, but that is consistent, I never charge for truth, only for taxi rides.

The only "refutations" I received were like the following, which never considered the argument:

You will pardon me if I fail to see that you have made your case.  I think he says, you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church.  I certainly do not accommodate Rome's foolishness.  But neither do I use the tenuous exegesis to circumvent the obvious.


Its not tenuous at all, it resolves ambiguity which is supposed to be the goal of exegesis. If one doesn't allow their ass to get in the way of their head, they will consider it.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:41:51 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2010, 01:40:22 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2010, 01:44:30 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?


Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 01:59:10 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2010, 01:53:25 PM »

Alfred, Thankfully, I didn't think the counter-arguments were worth much, but you should still take the time to refute them (in their proper places).

As for why I'm not interested in your article: I'm not really into reading arguments as to why the Earth is round, why would I be interested in an argument against the RCC's "Peter = the Rock" canard?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2010, 01:57:19 PM »

Alfred, Thankfully, I didn't think the counter-arguments were worth much, but you should still take the time to refute them (in their proper places).

As for why I'm not interested in your article: I'm not really into reading arguments as to why the Earth is round, why would I be interested in an argument against the RCC's "Peter = the Rock" canard?

No, I have no obligation to respond. If I hear any sound counter argument, I respond. As you aren't interested enough to consider it, your reply here is like those you didn't think worth much.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2010, 02:02:38 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

Masonism has been exposed, the top levels learn the secret name that resurrects is "Lucifer"

I suggest you repent of Masonisn, its not what you think.
But you are.

Not having had anything to do with freemasonry (which I gather is what you are refering to), I have nothing to repent.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 3,794



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2010, 02:03:41 PM »

I'm not really into reading arguments as to why the Earth is round, why would I be interested in an argument against the RCC's "Peter = the Rock" canard?

Didn't it go something like Peter made a confession of faith and Jesus responded "You are Petros (Rock) and on this petros I build my church."
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2010, 02:06:10 PM »

I just realized you folks might find my thesis on PETROS, which in Greek is PETROS, interesting:

What would give you that idea?

I find it funny that you've posted your thesis in various places on the 'net, and in each place people made couter-arguments that you did not address, or you continued to hammer on your point as if they had not spoken to you.

Funny, in that it is your pattern here.  Why should I have expected differently?
Yes, he seems here to have gotten his Vatican spam mixed up with his Orthodox spam. At least we didn't get the Vulgate priority spam.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29295.0.html

Masonism has been exposed, the top levels learn the secret name that resurrects is "Lucifer"

I suggest you repent of Masonisn, its not what you think.
But you are.

Not having had anything to do with freemasonry (which I gather is what you are refering to), I have nothing to repent.

The angel with the all seeing eye in front of a pyramid is masonic.

But if you aren't a Mason, good, at least you have that going for you.

I now recall the article you refer to, in 1987 Martin Abegg (M. Bockmuehl agrees)  says Charlesworth made a mistake, but as far as I know, Charlesworth doesn't think so. I didn't recall the article when I included that quote, its 2004 date made me think it was new material.

So it might be a mistake, but even if so, M. Bockmuehl's exegesis is not, that is documented.


Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. 'Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources.' Journal of Jewish Studies 55: 58-80.

Its online, go to the Jewish studies site

http://www.jjs-online.net/



« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 02:15:47 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2010, 02:11:52 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?

Although I do overdo it at times, using a camel sized swatter to squat a gnat, this thread isn't even up to gnat size.

Quote
Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
So it is Peter Christ?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2010, 02:18:22 PM »

As you aren't interested enough to consider it, your reply here is like those you didn't think worth much.

Not interested in making any friends here, I see.  Too bad.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2010, 02:18:55 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?

Although I do overdo it at times, using a camel sized swatter to squat a gnat, this thread isn't even up to gnat size.

Quote
Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
So it is Peter Christ?

Markus proves PETROS is Aramaic. That means it becomes PETROS in Greek, which is easily confused with PETROS stone.

But in Aramaic, it means "firstborn".

When you put the word "firstborn" in place of "petros" and read Mat 16:18 in context, it makes perfect sense:

You just confessed publicly divine revelation I am the Christ, the Son of the living God....therefore You are firstborn of this truth, and upon this rock like truth I will build my church.

Jesus is speaking TO Peter ABOUT the Rock, therefore Peter cannot be the rock.

Its a rock like truth as Christ is the rock from which springs living water:

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4 NKJ)

compare

 6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. (Exo 17:6 KJV)

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 02:44:28 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2010, 02:22:17 PM »

As you aren't interested enough to consider it, your reply here is like those you didn't think worth much.

Not interested in making any friends here, I see.  Too bad.

I didn't see that desire in your words. Sure, I love making friends, usually they don't order me around first.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2010, 02:50:59 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

For a man whose posts often have links galore, you couldn't supply one this time?

Although I do overdo it at times, using a camel sized swatter to squat a gnat, this thread isn't even up to gnat size.

Quote
Even if it were a mistake, that certainly is possible:

"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72
So it is Peter Christ?

Markus proves PETROS is Aramaic. That means it becomes PETROS in Greek, which is easily confused with PETROS stone.

But in Aramaic, it means "firstborn".

When you put the word "firstborn" in place of "petros" and read Mat 16:18 in context, it makes perfect sense:

You just confessed publicly divine revelation I am the Christ, the Son of the living God....therefore You are firstborn of this truth, and upon this rock like truth I will build my church.

Jesus is speaking TO Peter ABOUT the Rock, therefore Peter cannot be the rock.
Even if true, so what?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2010, 02:53:51 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

 Now I recall an email I got from Professor Charlesworth regarding this:


The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.

 

James H. Charlesworth

George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature

Director and Editor of the PTS Dead Sea Scrolls Project


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alfred Persson [mailto:alpersso1@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:27 AM
To: Charlesworth, Professor James
Subject: semetic petros in dead sea scrolls?





But when I put the article together, I completely forgot there is some dispute about the name's presence in that fragment.

Both Martin Abegg and M. Bockmuehl in 2006 emails say its not there. Why I forgot that when I put the thesis together is not known. I should have qualified it. But Prof. Charlesworth was asked about their objection, and he stands by it in that email, 2007.


Dear Alfred:

First of all, I did not read your entire email. In my world (30-40 emails a day) brevity is a virtue! So forgive me if I miss an important point past the first screen.

Second, this document has now received its final designation as 4Q341. The M130 was a preliminary number in reference to J.T. Milik’s share of the scrolls. It was published by the highly respected  Joseph Naveh in DJD 36 (p. 291-93) and, alas, no longer includes the name Peter. Charlesworth used a transcription prepared by the renowned maverick editor, John Allegro (who also found the crucifixion in the copper scroll). I doubt if Jim is still finds the name there himself.

best, marty


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alfred Persson" <alpersso1@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:45:47 -0700
To: <abegg@twu.ca>
Subject: Qumran Semitic Petros / Greek petros conundrum



Lest I forget again, I've appended this qualification to the quote:

This is disputed by Professors M. Bockmuehl and M. Abegg, but in a Dec. 2007 email Professor Charlesworth replied "the name seems quite possible."
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:11:37 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2010, 02:59:32 PM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin

I'm not you.
I know you're not me.  There's only one of me, and I'm the only one qualified for that role, so I'm not looking for applicants.  But lest we get into some Abbot and Costello discussion here, let me point out two simple truths for you:
1.  There is a God.
2.  You're not Him.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2010, 03:02:49 PM »

"You are PETROS-Firstborn (of the divine revelation of Me)
There's your first problem right there.  Who are you? Grin

I'm not you.
I know you're not me.  There's only one of me, and I'm the only one qualified for that role, so I'm not looking for applicants.  But lest we get into some Abbot and Costello discussion here, let me point out two simple truths for you:
1.  There is a God.
2.  You're not Him.

You want to fight...I don't...cya.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2010, 03:08:17 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2010, 03:16:48 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

I know my thesis is "dense", poorly written, but surely it communicated the proposition PETROS is a name in Aramaic with a special meaning "FIRSTBORN, FIRST", not "little rock."

My whole thesis is people mistook it for Greek, when its actually transliterated Aramaic just like the names of other disciples.

Jesus used BOTH meanings in Mat 16:18, in a double entendre. Matthew, fearing Peter would be confused as the Rock,  made the second Aramaic PETROS Petra, in a vain attempt to rule out Peter as the rock of the church. It didn't work.

AND I know it agrees with the Orthodox understanding of the text, I posted it because it might interest you.

Its certainly different.

It doesn't bother me the lexicons haven't been updated to include this information...they will eventually, the exegesis resolves too many ambiguities to be wrong.

I didn't discover this on my own, in Kittel's PETROS, footnote 8 alerted me to it. Cf M. Bockmuehl's article posted above.


« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:24:54 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2010, 03:28:40 PM »

Like the Flat Earth and global warming theories, the Peter is the Rock consensus is certainly wrong, a tradition of men.
So you are saying you are not a man?

Where is the consensus on your tradition?

The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

New discovery, the lexicons must be updated to include it:

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.




This one?

"A Misunderstood Recently Published Dead Sea Scroll (4QM130)," Explorations (American Institute for the Study of Religious Cooperation, Philadelphia, PA) 1/2 (1987) 2

 Now I recall an email I got from Professor Charlesworth regarding this:


The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.

 

James H. Charlesworth

George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature

Director and Editor of the PTS Dead Sea Scrolls Project


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alfred Persson [mailto:alpersso1@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:27 AM
To: Charlesworth, Professor James
Subject: semetic petros in dead sea scrolls?





But when I put the article together, I completely forgot there is some dispute about the name's presence in that fragment.

Both Martin Abegg and M. Bockmuehl in 2006 emails say its not there. Why I forgot that when I put the thesis together is not known. I should have qualified it. But Prof. Charlesworth was asked about their objection, and he stands by it in that email, 2007.


Dear Alfred:

First of all, I did not read your entire email. In my world (30-40 emails a day) brevity is a virtue! So forgive me if I miss an important point past the first screen.

Second, this document has now received its final designation as 4Q341. The M130 was a preliminary number in reference to J.T. Milik’s share of the scrolls. It was published by the highly respected  Joseph Naveh in DJD 36 (p. 291-93) and, alas, no longer includes the name Peter. Charlesworth used a transcription prepared by the renowned maverick editor, John Allegro (who also found the crucifixion in the copper scroll). I doubt if Jim is still finds the name there himself.

best, marty


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alfred Persson" <alpersso1@adelphia.net>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:45:47 -0700
To: <abegg@twu.ca>
Subject: Qumran Semitic Petros / Greek petros conundrum



Lest I forget again, I've appended this qualification to the quote:

This is disputed by Professors M. Bockmuehl and M. Abegg, but in a Dec. 2007 email Professor Charlesworth replied "the name seems quite possible."
Again, even if true, so what?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2010, 03:33:07 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:33:27 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2010, 03:36:21 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Congratulations, Alfred. You have resurrected Jonathan Gress. Birds of a feather...

What do you too do with this?

καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ· σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2010, 03:40:09 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Congratulations, Alfred. You have resurrected Jonathan Gress. Birds of a feather...

What do you too do with this?

καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωνᾶ· σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος

It follows Jesus did not give Simon the name PETROS in John 1:42

When John translates Aramaic into Greek, it is METHERMENEUW, when he explains what the Aramaic means it is HERMENEUW:
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted(HERMENEUW), Master,) where dwellest thou?

41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted(METHERMENEUW), the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), A stone.(Joh 1:38-42 KJV)

Compare:

KJV John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation(HERMENEUW), Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. (Joh 9:7 KJV)

Although HERMENEUW can be found outside scripture as "translate," that is not John's usage. It is unhistorical to read into KEPHA what it became later, a proper name. Here it is an epithet, an idiom, not a name; therefore, John would not translate it into a proper name, rather he is interpreting it to be a stone.

It is parsimonous Christ meant  KEPHA as it is found in the Aramaic Targums, and so John chose the Attic Greek "petros" because it means "small stone":

Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies," Aramaic KEPHA Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos;  
Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Aramaic KEPHA; Heb. eben  cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious reward.  [That is, a stone for a bribe, to buy favor].
-"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud  Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic  Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica  Press, NT, 1996], pp. 634-635).  

As KEPHA=PETROS (Attic)=LITHOS (Koine) it follows  Christ called Simon a precious "lively stone" which Simon later applies to the church:

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.(1Pe 2:4-6 KJV)

The imagery is derived from Christ---the Rockmass KEPHA/PETRA, which Moses was to strike once (Ex 17:6; 1 Cor 10:4) for living water to come out…
 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock PETRA that followed them: and that Rock PETRA was Christ. (1Co 10:4 KJV)

Believers are little christs" (CHRISTIANOS), lively stones that figuratively purchase favor from God preaching the immutable truth of Christ's Name---mediating life to all who believe.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (Joh 7:38 KJV)


Jesus surnamed Simon by putting upon him an epithet

16 And Simon he surnamed (EPITITHEMI)  Peter (PETROS);
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (EPITITHEMI) them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
(Mar 3:16-17 KJV)

Boanerges is an epithet, idiom, not a proper name, hence neither of these men are ever called this name. Jesus put the meaning "of sons of thunder" on the pair… It follows Jesus also put upon Simon a meaning, not a proper name.

The only place in Scripture where Jesus says, "Thou art PETROS," is Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42 where He called him "Cephas".


What meaning did Jesus put upon Simon? Scripture says all who confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, via divine revelation, are born again (Rom 10:8ff; John 1:12; 1 John 4:15). It follows Jesus called Simon "Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ". Context supports this exegesis:

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:43:58 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2010, 03:40:58 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
LOL. I'm sure the Vatican is quaking at your appearance.

We've done quite fine without your help.
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
so we will stick with those with authority who know what they are talking about.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2010, 03:46:30 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
LOL. I'm sure the Vatican is quaking at your appearance.

We've done quite fine without your help.
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
so we will stick with those with authority who know what they are talking about.

Your slipping...not conjuring up the usual number of icons to slay me.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2010, 03:52:28 PM »

Liddell-Scott distinguish PETROS from PETRA: the former means 'stone', which is British for 'small rock', the kind you can pick up and throw, while the latter means 'rock', which is British for 'cliff, boulder, rocky outcrop', the kind you can build on (cf. "Rock of Gibraltar"). Both words are attested as early as Homer. So Christ might have been playing on the different meanings in Greek. However, it is hard to see what the significance of 'little, throwable rock' is in relation to either Peter himself or to his confession (if somebody finds a patristic source that comments on this, it would be great to hear it).

The passage makes much more sense if we assume that PETROS was already a common given name: the word-play is entirely appropriate in that instance. The question then is: did Christ call Simon Barjona PETROS simply so that he could later play on the similarity to PETRA? Or does PETROS itself have some special meaning of its own, as a given name? If it does, the meaning 'small, portable rock' is not very enlightening, as we saw. On the other hand, if PETROS happens to mean something in Aramaic, independently of whatever it means in Greek, then perhaps we have the key to this puzzle. In that respect, I find Alfred Persson's thesis, that PETROS is (Hellenized?) Aramaic for 'firstborn', very interesting and quite likely to be correct.

By the way, I don't think this has anything directly to do with the traditional Orthodox exegesis of this passage, which considers the 'rock', PETRA, to refer to Peter's confession of faith, rather than the person of Peter himself. It wasn't clear to me that this is what Alfred was arguing in any case. If he was, of course that's wrong. But given that he has identified himself as Protestant, I find it very unlikely that he has adopted the Catholic exegesis of this passage, although I'm sure he can speak for himself.

I didn't notice your "on the other hand" comment. If you look up Janus Parallelism, and then read Mt 16:18 with the possibility Christ is using both meanings of PETROS---Aramaic "firstborn" and Greek "petros/ stone", in a double entendre, it fits perfectly.

This kind of double entendre occurs in the OT...unlike all the other theories of a pun, which seem contrived and foreign to Christ's manner of teaching.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 03:56:01 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2010, 03:56:44 PM »

Good point, ialmisry. I forgot that passage, which I think settles the matter: PETROS means rock. Sorry, Alfred!

I presume that the use of PETROS rather than PETRA can only be because PETROS is masculine gender; the feminine PETRA would be inappropriate as a given name for the apostle, for obvious reasons. This also suggests that the wordplay is illusory: Petros was chosen by the evangelist because it was the masculine cognate of PETRA, which is the 'real' translation of Cephas, i.e. a rock large enough to build on.

I think the biggest problem with Alfred's thesis is his claim that St Matthew was practicing some kind of deception on his readers. This is clearly offensive to Orthodox, aside from whatever truth there may be in his thesis that PETROS is Aramaic for 'firstborn'. I find it hard to accept even that anymore, since St John makes it clear that the original Aramaic name was Cephas, not Petros. So even if Petros happens to mean 'firstborn' in Aramaic, that is not the name Christ chose.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2010, 04:01:35 PM »

Good point, ialmisry. I forgot that passage, which I think settles the matter: PETROS means rock. Sorry, Alfred!

I presume that the use of PETROS rather than PETRA can only be because PETROS is masculine gender; the feminine PETRA would be inappropriate as a given name for the apostle, for obvious reasons. This also suggests that the wordplay is illusory: Petros was chosen by the evangelist because it was the masculine cognate of PETRA, which is the 'real' translation of Cephas, i.e. a rock large enough to build on.

I think the biggest problem with Alfred's thesis is his claim that St Matthew was practicing some kind of deception on his readers. This is clearly offensive to Orthodox, aside from whatever truth there may be in his thesis that PETROS is Aramaic for 'firstborn'. I find it hard to accept even that anymore, since St John makes it clear that the original Aramaic name was Cephas, not Petros. So even if Petros happens to mean 'firstborn' in Aramaic, that is not the name Christ chose.

Incorrect, the middle term is undistributed. In Jn 1:42 Christ called Simon Cephas, not petros.  John writing much later interprets Cephas as meaning a petros.

The only place Christ says "Thou art Petros" is in Mat 16:18, and if you read that context carefully, it has the meaning of "PRWTOS" , "first" (cf Mt 10:2).

That's why this lexicon says "probably" when it connects Mat 16:18 and John 1:42, because the connection isn't real, the argument is circular. You must assume Cephas = petros and then it proves Cephas=petros.

"PETROS…Fr. the beginning it was prob. thought of as the Gk. equivalent of the Aramaic Keph Keephas; J 1:42; cf. Mt 16:18"- A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer; University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 654.



I never said Matthew was practicing deception, its odd you read that in my words.

Matthew translated Jesus' Aramaic speech, and mannerism perfectly, communicating precisely what Christ meant.

Reading that as me claiming he deceived others, is offensive...but also reflects upon the quality of your work.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 04:07:09 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2010, 04:51:12 PM »

Well, I might have been wrong about what your argument was. If so, forgive me. What made me think you were talking about deception was when you said that St Matthew changed PETROS to PETRA in "a vain attempt" that the audience should rule out Petros as the rock of the church. I think the suggestion that anything the evangelists did in their translation was 'vain' is itself kind of offensive. The evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and nothing they wrote was in vain. Perhaps one should choose a different word.

You claim the Aramaic name that Christ gave Simon Barjona was Petros, not Cephas, as St John attests. For this you draw a distinction between 'hermeneuo' and 'methermeneuo', which seems stretched and artificial: what exactly is the difference between explaining the meaning of a foreign word, and translating the foreign word? We Orthodox take the evangelists at face value: if St John said that Christ called him Cephas, then that is the Aramaic word Christ used, and if he says that Cephas means 'stone', i.e. Petros in Greek, then that is what it means. We then interpret St Matthew in the light of St John: when the evangelist says Christ called Simon Petros, then we understand that in Aramaic Christ used the word Cephas, but when translating into Greek we understand Christ to have meant Petros.

I suppose I'm still not entirely clear why St Matthew switches from PETROS to PETRA. Why didn't St Matthew translate Christ's words like this: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτοῦ"? It seems that PETROS just doesn't mean a rock large enough to build on, but the evangelists may have chosen PETROS to translate CEPHAS because it was masculine and therefore appropriate as a given name.

According to Alfred's sources, however, the Aramaic CEPHAS can mean either a small stone, or else a large rock or outcrop. So Christ may have used the word CEPHAS both as Simon's new name, and also as the 'rock' upon which he would build his church. Therefore it was actually completely legitimate to translate CEPHAS as PETROS in one context, and as PETRA in another. Using different words in Greek may also reinforce the correct interpretation, that the rock upon which Christ builds his church is NOT the same as Peter, but is actually the confession of Peter.

Is Alfred right about the meaning of CEPHAS, by the way? Or does Aramaic have different words for large and small rocks, and has St John only provided us with the word for a small rock, i.e. Cephas? If the latter is true, then perhaps St Matthew used PETRA to translate a different word than CEPHAS, which the evangelists happened not to give for us.

That Petros was used because of a special meaning must be true. The wikipedia page on St Peter claims that Petros was not in fact a standard given name before Christ used it to name Peter. I'm not sure if Alfred was trying to claim that Petros was already being used as a given name. It made sense to me at first but it seems it is not true after all.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2010, 05:56:58 PM »

Well, I might have been wrong about what your argument was. If so, forgive me. What made me think you were talking about deception was when you said that St Matthew changed PETROS to PETRA in "a vain attempt" that the audience should rule out Petros as the rock of the church. I think the suggestion that anything the evangelists did in their translation was 'vain' is itself kind of offensive. The evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and nothing they wrote was in vain. Perhaps one should choose a different word.

You claim the Aramaic name that Christ gave Simon Barjona was Petros, not Cephas, as St John attests. For this you draw a distinction between 'hermeneuo' and 'methermeneuo', which seems stretched and artificial: what exactly is the difference between explaining the meaning of a foreign word, and translating the foreign word? We Orthodox take the evangelists at face value: if St John said that Christ called him Cephas, then that is the Aramaic word Christ used, and if he says that Cephas means 'stone', i.e. Petros in Greek, then that is what it means. We then interpret St Matthew in the light of St John: when the evangelist says Christ called Simon Petros, then we understand that in Aramaic Christ used the word Cephas, but when translating into Greek we understand Christ to have meant Petros.

I suppose I'm still not entirely clear why St Matthew switches from PETROS to PETRA. Why didn't St Matthew translate Christ's words like this: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτοῦ"? It seems that PETROS just doesn't mean a rock large enough to build on, but the evangelists may have chosen PETROS to translate CEPHAS because it was masculine and therefore appropriate as a given name.

According to Alfred's sources, however, the Aramaic CEPHAS can mean either a small stone, or else a large rock or outcrop. So Christ may have used the word CEPHAS both as Simon's new name, and also as the 'rock' upon which he would build his church. Therefore it was actually completely legitimate to translate CEPHAS as PETROS in one context, and as PETRA in another. Using different words in Greek may also reinforce the correct interpretation, that the rock upon which Christ builds his church is NOT the same as Peter, but is actually the confession of Peter.

Is Alfred right about the meaning of CEPHAS, by the way? Or does Aramaic have different words for large and small rocks, and has St John only provided us with the word for a small rock, i.e. Cephas? If the latter is true, then perhaps St Matthew used PETRA to translate a different word than CEPHAS, which the evangelists happened not to give for us.

That Petros was used because of a special meaning must be true. The wikipedia page on St Peter claims that Petros was not in fact a standard given name before Christ used it to name Peter. I'm not sure if Alfred was trying to claim that Petros was already being used as a given name. It made sense to me at first but it seems it is not true after all.

1)I'll rephrase it: In Aramaic Christ says:
"You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build."

Matthew, being an eyewitness, notices Christ's body language, that he is not saying Peter is the Rock of the church. Matthew, knowing Aramaic PETROS means "first, firstborn" and the Greek Petros means "rock", understands Christ to using a double entendre to describe the truth Peter just confessed, as a life giving Rock, which just made Peter a member of the church, he was born again when He confessed the PETRA of Christ.

Had Matthew used PETROS twice however, it would mislead Greek speaking people into believing Christ meant Peter is the rock. Therefore, to precisely translate Christ's meaning, the Greek grammer in effect has Christ speaking TO petros ABOUT the petra, thus ruling out Peter as the rock of the church.

I said this was in vain because Roman Catholicism exists,  "vain" being defined as "not yielding the desired outcome."

There was no suggestion he was being dishonest.

2) KJV  John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


John does not attest, he explains Cephas means stone.  That is CONSISTENT with John's use of hermeneuo and methermeneuo in the context and elsewhere. That these are used synonymously elsewhere has less weight than John's use in his gospel. The opposite of stretch, its parsimony, characteristic of true interpretation.

The fact Cephas was not a proper name when Christ spoke this, corroborates my exegesis. Cephas became a proper name as Christianity was established, when Christ spoke this, it was not.

Therefore John is not translating Cephas as Petros, rather its parsimonous he is interpreting it to be a stone.

This is further corroborated by the fact the disciples had Aramaic names, to think Peter didn't is a stretch...it does appear Simon was known as Petros before the event in John 1:42:

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
 (Joh 1:40 NKJ)

18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 19 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
 (Mat 4:18-19 NKJ)

Those who dispute my thesis violate parsimony, they multiply entities to explain this away.

Parsimony is the "pillar" supporting my argument.

All correct interpretation of reality is parsimonous
. For example,  if we both see someone falling outside our 10th floor window, we would not conclude he was flying to a better location, because that's not parsimonous. We know the laws of physics, and human nature, lead naturally to the conclusion he is falling to his death. To suppose differently, that perhaps he is flying to a better location, requires we multiply entities,  a jet pack; temporary suspension of the laws of physics; he is superman  etc. Those entities must be added to make the conclusion true, hence it is not parsimonous.

3)My thesis explains that switch perfectly.  As you note, Matthew could have translated using PETROS twice, it can be a stone one builds on. And if Christ meant PETROS, why Matthew didn't translate PETROS is inexplicable, Matthew has no problem calling Simon PETROS 23 times, suddenly he can't in Mat 16:18?

Therefore it is parsimonous we conclude Christ didn't mean PETER when he spoke to him about the Rock, that is the best explanation why Matthew didn't translate "You are petros and upon this petros I will build", Christ did not say that.

So Matthew's switch to petra makes sense.

4)If Christ wanted to say "You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build," He would have said it and Matthew could have translated it that way. Nothing stopped John from saying Cephas, so nothing would stop Matthew from translating it that way. He didn't because Christ didn't, that is parsimonous.

5)Only finding many more examples of PETROS as an Aramaic name in Christ's day, meaning "firstborn",  can overturn the "classic" generalization petros = petra. I've tried, and failed to make the case. I post this knowing it will fail to convince, because precise critical thinking is required for acceptance, and most folks aren't willing to apply such precision to religion. They prefer fuzzy logic.

6)Yes, I do claim PETROS was an Aramaic name, not a Greek one, while the evidence shows both Cephas and the Greek, PETROS were established as Greek names by the publication of the NT.

Professor Markus Bockmuehl  cites the documents proving PETROS existed as an Aramaic name independent of Christ.

That Peter's Aramaic name meant firstborn, was discussed by earlier German scholarship:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.  

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 06:22:23 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2010, 06:37:19 PM »

That Peter's Aramaic name meant firstborn, was discussed by earlier German scholarship:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.  

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.



I made the final comment only to point out the unsoundness of the argument, that usage doesn't prove derivation, not to support the retranslation theory. Prof. Cullmann generalized the usage, Paul seems to use Cephas differently than he does Petros, to convey status.

CEPHAS
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
KJV 1 Corinthians 3:22  Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
KJV 1 Corinthians 9:5  Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
KJV 1 Corinthians 15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
KJV Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 
PETROS
KJV Galatians 1:18  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
KJV Galatians 2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
KJV Galatians 2:8  (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
KJV Galatians 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
KJV Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


And he assumed what he hoped to prove, that Cephas was the usual designation...I don't see that at all in the data. Finally, Galatians was written before 1 Corinthians.


If Petros was the Greek translation of Cephas, then they would be used similarly, no difference in usage. Unfortunately this is obscured in the critical texts where Cephas and Petros switch randomly, no apparent reason. That is inconsistent with Paul's demonstrable precision and careful choice of words to make his point.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 07:06:19 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2010, 06:56:01 PM »

The evangelists don't have Christ say "upon this Cephas I will build" because we only have the Greek translation of what He said. To say "ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ Κηφᾶς" would make no sense to a Greek speaker. I was wondering for a while if He was in fact speaking Greek to St Peter, but St John makes it clear that He was speaking Aramaic, that the name He bestowed on St Peter was Cephas, which is translated into Greek as Petros. In light of what St John tells us, we must interpret St Matthew's use of PETROS to be intended as the Greek translation of Cephas.

You are right to say that the simplest explanation is the best, but only the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts. And the fact is that, according to what ALL the gospels taken together tell us, the Aramaic name bestowed by Christ on St Peter was Cephas, not Petros, and that Petros is only the Greek translation of the Aramaic original.

As to why St Matthew refers to St Peter as Petros, while translating the 'rock' of the church as PETRA, is perhaps less clear, but I don't believe the right explanation is because PETROS is actually an Aramaic word. Firstly, PETROS is everywhere inflected as a Greek masculine o-stem noun; surely if it were Aramaic it would not be declined like a Greek word? Secondly, there is the unshakable testimony of St John, that Petros is in fact the translation of Cephas. No Orthodox is free to interpret this as some kind of error on St John's part. As a Protestant, of course, you are free to think what you like, but don't imagine you will convince any of us that St John was somehow mistaken. It is not a matter of using fuzzy logic, but of being absolutely faithful to the Gospel.

The only reason I gave your theory credence at first was because I had quite simply forgotten the passage of St John, where he establishes the equivalence of Cephas and Petros beyond any doubt. Once ialmisry reminded me of it, I had no choice but to reject your theory. No number of German "new critics" has any weight against St John the Theologian.

Now I might be wrong about this, but I think St Matthew switches from Petros to PETRA for the following reasons: the intended meaning of CEPHAS was "large rock or outcrop", the kind you can build on. The most accurate translation in Greek would be PETRA. However, since that is a feminine noun, it would not be appropriate to give that as a name for St Peter in the Greek version, so the evangelists chose PETROS. Whenever they refer to the person of St Peter, therefore, they use PETROS (that is, when they are not using the Aramaic word CEPHAS as a proper name). However, in the particular passage of St Matthew where we first hear the name, Christ explains his choice of name by saying that "upon this rock I will build My church". The Aramaic original for 'rock' was also CEPHAS. Here, of course, it would not make sense to Greek readers to say "upon this little stone I will build My church", and so St Matthew switches to more accurate PETRA. Thus, Christ did not intend any subtle word-play, but the PETROS-PETRA alternation appears to be an illusion brought about by the difficulties of translating CEPHAS into Greek. In the Aramaic original, I presume Christ used CEPHAS both as St Peter's new name, and as the "rock" of his confession. Fortunately, the words for large and small rock in Greek are similar enough that the original Aramaic pun is not lost completely in translation.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2010, 07:14:55 PM »

re John 1:42

Parsimony, neither Cephas in Aramaic, or PETROS in Greek, were proper names when Christ spoke Jn 1:42, therefore Christ is calling Simon "a stone," not Mr. "Cephas". As it is not a proper name, John is not translating it as "Peter", he is saying "cephas in Aramaic is stone in Greek."


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2010, 07:21:43 PM »

My thesis alone is consistent, the generalization petros is from cephas is not. There is no rosetta stone proving that connection, its a conclusion based upon generalizing different things as being the same = circular reasoning.

It is fact, Christ did not call Simon "Mr Petros" in John 1:42, because Cephas was not a proper name when He spoke this.

Neither was Petros in Greek.

And John 1:40 implies Simon already had the name Petros before verse 42.

PARSIMONY.

I never said parsimony was the shortest explanation, I said its the one that rests exclusively on fact and doesn't require we invent data to make it believable.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2010, 07:36:28 PM »

Well, I might have been wrong about what your argument was. If so, forgive me. What made me think you were talking about deception was when you said that St Matthew changed PETROS to PETRA in "a vain attempt" that the audience should rule out Petros as the rock of the church. I think the suggestion that anything the evangelists did in their translation was 'vain' is itself kind of offensive. The evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and nothing they wrote was in vain. Perhaps one should choose a different word.

You claim the Aramaic name that Christ gave Simon Barjona was Petros, not Cephas, as St John attests. For this you draw a distinction between 'hermeneuo' and 'methermeneuo', which seems stretched and artificial: what exactly is the difference between explaining the meaning of a foreign word, and translating the foreign word? We Orthodox take the evangelists at face value: if St John said that Christ called him Cephas, then that is the Aramaic word Christ used, and if he says that Cephas means 'stone', i.e. Petros in Greek, then that is what it means. We then interpret St Matthew in the light of St John: when the evangelist says Christ called Simon Petros, then we understand that in Aramaic Christ used the word Cephas, but when translating into Greek we understand Christ to have meant Petros.

I suppose I'm still not entirely clear why St Matthew switches from PETROS to PETRA. Why didn't St Matthew translate Christ's words like this: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτοῦ"? It seems that PETROS just doesn't mean a rock large enough to build on, but the evangelists may have chosen PETROS to translate CEPHAS because it was masculine and therefore appropriate as a given name.

According to Alfred's sources, however, the Aramaic CEPHAS can mean either a small stone, or else a large rock or outcrop. So Christ may have used the word CEPHAS both as Simon's new name, and also as the 'rock' upon which he would build his church. Therefore it was actually completely legitimate to translate CEPHAS as PETROS in one context, and as PETRA in another. Using different words in Greek may also reinforce the correct interpretation, that the rock upon which Christ builds his church is NOT the same as Peter, but is actually the confession of Peter.

Is Alfred right about the meaning of CEPHAS, by the way? Or does Aramaic have different words for large and small rocks, and has St John only provided us with the word for a small rock, i.e. Cephas? If the latter is true, then perhaps St Matthew used PETRA to translate a different word than CEPHAS, which the evangelists happened not to give for us.

That Petros was used because of a special meaning must be true. The wikipedia page on St Peter claims that Petros was not in fact a standard given name before Christ used it to name Peter. I'm not sure if Alfred was trying to claim that Petros was already being used as a given name. It made sense to me at first but it seems it is not true after all.

1)I'll rephrase it: In Aramaic Christ says:
"You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build."

Petros is Greek. Even if it was in Aramaic, Petros is a Greek loan or rather name, if what you are saying were correct. Which would make no sense as both Aramaic ("b'khur") and Greek ("prwtotokon") have technical terms for firstborn. And if he used the loan "petros," why wouldn't he use the Greek origin "prwtos."  Why St. Matthew would have Christ mix them up makes no sense, even less sense than your usual eisogesis.

Quote
Matthew, being an eyewitness, notices Christ's body language, that he is not saying Peter is the Rock of the church. Matthew, knowing Aramaic PETROS means "first, firstborn" and the Greek Petros means "rock", understands Christ to using a double entendre to describe the truth Peter just confessed, as a life giving Rock, which just made Peter a member of the church, he was born again when He confessed the PETRA of Christ.

No, he was born again when he was baptized by the Holy Spirit.

Quote
Had Matthew used PETROS twice however, it would mislead Greek speaking people into believing Christ meant Peter is the rock. Therefore, to precisely translate Christ's meaning, the Greek grammer in effect has Christ speaking TO petros ABOUT the petra, thus ruling out Peter as the rock of the church.

Quote
That rules out Christ being the PETROS (which you seem to be claiming)

I said this was in vain because Roman Catholicism exists,  "vain" being defined as "not yielding the desired outcome."

There was no suggestion he was being dishonest.

You are talking about the Omniscent Almighty, and saying He laid a foundation of sand.

Quote
2) KJV  John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

John does not attest, he explains Cephas means stone.  That is CONSISTENT with John's use of hermeneuo and methermeneuo in the context and elsewhere. That these are used synonymously elsewhere has less weight than John's use in his gospel. The opposite of stretch, its parsimony, characteristic of true interpretation.

How would you know?  Indeed, reading your posts, we can see you do not practice what you preach, instead indulging in far fledged "arguments."

Quote
The fact Cephas was not a proper name when Christ spoke this, corroborates my exegesis. Cephas became a proper name as Christianity was established, when Christ spoke this, it was not.

So your elaborate argument to "prove" that Christ did not name Peter Peter is nought, and a waste of our time.
So here, definitely a distinction without a difference. I Timothy 6:20. II Timothy 2:16.

I Timothy 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. II Timothy 2:14 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Quote
Therefore John is not translating Cephas as Petros, rather its parsimonous he is interpreting it to be a stone.

This is further corroborated by the fact the disciples had Aramaic names, to think Peter didn't is a stretch...it does appear Simon was known as Petros before the event in John 1:42:

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
 (Joh 1:40 NKJ)

St. John is writing long, long after the event in John 1:42. Long after Matthew 16 was written in fact.

Quote
18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 19 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
 (Mat 4:18-19 NKJ)

Those who dispute my thesis violate parsimony, they multiply entities to explain this away.

Parsimony is the "pillar" supporting my argument.
Oh? Meet the Church:


Quote
All correct interpretation of reality is parsimonous. For example,  if we both see someone falling outside our 10th floor window, we would not conclude he was flying to a better location, because that's not parsimonous. We know the laws of physics, and human nature, lead naturally to the conclusion he is falling to his death. To suppose differently, that perhaps he is flying to a better location, requires we multiply entities,  a jet pack; temporary suspension of the laws of physics; he is superman  etc. Those entities must be added to make the conclusion true, hence it is not parsimonous.

And if the Greek speaking Christians of the first century and after understood that St. Peter was named Rock by Christ, and they did; and if the Aramaic then Syriac speaking Christians of the first century and after understood that St. Peter was named Rock by Christ, and they did'; then we don't have to resort to far fetched explanations either offered by the centuries old Vatican or the young man who just bought Bible Works (c). That is not parsimonous.

Quote
3)My thesis explains that switch perfectly.  As you note, Matthew could have translated using PETROS twice, it can be a stone one builds on. And if Christ meant PETROS, why Matthew didn't translate PETROS is inexplicable, Matthew has no problem calling Simon PETROS 23 times, suddenly he can't in Mat 16:18?


He does: you are the one with a problem.

Quote
Therefore it is parsimonous we conclude Christ didn't mean PETER when he spoke to him about the Rock, that is the best explanation why Matthew didn't translate "You are petros and upon this petros I will build", Christ did not say that.

St. Matthew and the Church says he did.

So Matthew's switch to petra makes sense.

Quote
4)If Christ wanted to say "You are Cephas and upon this Cephas I will build," He would have said it and Matthew could have translated it that way. Nothing stopped John from saying Cephas, so nothing would stop Matthew from translating it that way. He didn't because Christ didn't, that is parsimonous.


St. Paul uses both Peter and Cephas. No one has been confused by that for two thousand years, until you came along.

Quote
5)Only finding many more examples of PETROS as an Aramaic name in Christ's day, meaning "firstborn",  can overturn the "classic" generalization petros = petra. I've tried, and failed to make the case.


And what have you learned. Evidently nothing.

Quote
I post this knowing it will fail to convince, because precise critical thinking is required for acceptance, and most folks aren't willing to apply such precision to religion. They prefer fuzzy logic.

You display that quite conveniently.

Quote
6)Yes, I do claim PETROS was an Aramaic name, not a Greek one, while the evidence shows both Cephas and the Greek, PETROS were established as Greek names by the publication of the NT
.

The word is Greek. The very form of the word tells us it is not Aramaic. Btw, both "Peter" and "Kepha" have been used as a name continuously by the Aramaic/Syriac speaking Orthodox and non-Orthodox from the time of the Apostles until today.

CAL does have a pTr, pyTr' for "first born," but that further shows this is not the word we are dealing with.  The "y" in the Aramaic and the "-os" in the in what you are arguing rules that out.

Quote
Professor Markus Bockmuehl  cites the documents proving PETROS existed as an Aramaic name independent of Christ.

Good for him. So what?

Quote
That Peter's Aramaic name meant firstborn, was discussed by earlier German scholarship:

14 …’The proper name Peter does not appear at all in pagan literature; it first appears in Tertullian.’ There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". The theory that the Greek Petros was first derived from it and gave occasion for a false retranslation Kepha into Aramaic is quite impossible, in view of the fact that in Paul’s letters Cephas is already the usual designation and Peter clearly was only a derivation from it."-PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann , translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), pp18-19.  

However, as Prof Cullmann’s argument would yield the opposite conclusion in John--Cephas appears only once, but PETROS 35 times, it must be unsound. The middle term is undistributed and the reasoning circular as its conclusion also one of its premises.

News to the Aramaic speaking Christians, but the Germans are free to say what they like.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2010, 07:39:35 PM »

As to why St Matthew refers to St Peter as Petros, while translating the 'rock' of the church as PETRA, is perhaps less clear, but I don't believe the right explanation is because PETROS is actually an Aramaic word. Firstly, PETROS is everywhere inflected as a Greek masculine o-stem noun; surely if it were Aramaic it would not be declined like a Greek word? Secondly, there is the unshakable testimony of St John, that Petros is in fact the translation of Cephas. No Orthodox is free to interpret this as some kind of error on St John's part. As a Protestant, of course, you are free to think what you like, but don't imagine you will convince any of us that St John was somehow mistaken. It is not a matter of using fuzzy logic, but of being absolutely faithful to the Gospel.

The only reason I gave your theory credence at first was because I had quite simply forgotten the passage of St John, where he establishes the equivalence of Cephas and Petros beyond any doubt. Once ialmisry reminded me of it, I had no choice but to reject your theory. No number of German "new critics" has any weight against St John the Theologian.

Now I might be wrong about this, but I think St Matthew switches from Petros to PETRA for the following reasons: the intended meaning of CEPHAS was "large rock or outcrop", the kind you can build on. The most accurate translation in Greek would be PETRA. However, since that is a feminine noun, it would not be appropriate to give that as a name for St Peter in the Greek version, so the evangelists chose PETROS. Whenever they refer to the person of St Peter, therefore, they use PETROS (that is, when they are not using the Aramaic word CEPHAS as a proper name). However, in the particular passage of St Matthew where we first hear the name, Christ explains his choice of name by saying that "upon this rock I will build My church". The Aramaic original for 'rock' was also CEPHAS. Here, of course, it would not make sense to Greek readers to say "upon this little stone I will build My church", and so St Matthew switches to more accurate PETRA. Thus, Christ did not intend any subtle word-play, but the PETROS-PETRA alternation appears to be an illusion brought about by the difficulties of translating CEPHAS into Greek. In the Aramaic original, I presume Christ used CEPHAS both as St Peter's new name, and as the "rock" of his confession. Fortunately, the words for large and small rock in Greek are similar enough that the original Aramaic pun is not lost completely in translation.

Again that explanation doesn't fit the data, Christ is called petra, God is called petra, but Simon cannot be?

NKJ  1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
 (1Co 10:4 NKJ)

LXE  2 Samuel 22:2 And the song was thus: O Lord, my rock(petra), and my fortress, and my deliverer,
 (2Sa 22:2 LXE)

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2010, 07:43:32 PM »

My thesis alone is consistent,

Are you speaking ex cathedra?

Quote
the generalization petros is from cephas is not. There is no rosetta stone proving that connection, its a conclusion based upon generalizing different things as being the same = circular reasoning.

Are you speaking of yourself? 'cuz the consistent teaching of both the Aramaic and Greek speaking Christians have been Peter=Cephas, from the Apostles until today.

Quote
It is fact, Christ did not call Simon "Mr Petros" in John 1:42, because Cephas was not a proper name when He spoke this.

Neither was Petros in Greek.

Petros is Greek.  It is not Aramaic.  In Aramaic it sticks out as a loan more than "borsht" sticks out in English.

Quote
And John 1:40 implies Simon already had the name Petros before verse 42.

PARSIMONY.
NONSENSE

Quote
I never said parsimony was the shortest explanation, I said its the one that rests exclusively on fact and doesn't require we invent data to make it believable.
The fact that "petros" cannot be an Aramaic word has been conviently ignored by you.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2010, 07:45:17 PM »

Again, even if true, so what?

It "proves" the Orthodox understanding of the text, against Rome's eisegesis.

It "proves" the Catholic magisterium is very fallible, for hundreds of years they've been very wrong about Peter, PETROS, and the Rock.

It restores Peter to his proper place, as one of the Twelve, not the chief of them, just as we see in the first council in Acts 15.

Apart from that, yeah...so what.
LOL. I'm sure the Vatican is quaking at your appearance.

We've done quite fine without your help.
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
so we will stick with those with authority who know what they are talking about.

Your slipping...not conjuring up the usual number of icons to slay me.
This one is all we need:
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2010, 07:58:15 PM »

1)I'll rephrase it: In Aramaic Christ says:
"You are Petros and upon this Petros I will build."

Petros is Greek. Even if it was in Aramaic, Petros is a Greek loan or rather name, if what you are saying were correct. Which would make no sense as both Aramaic ("b'khur") and Greek ("prwtotokon") have technical terms for firstborn. And if he used the loan "petros," why wouldn't he use the Greek origin "prwtos."  Why St. Matthew would have Christ mix them up makes no sense, even less sense than your usual eisogesis.


Matthew did call Simon PRWTOS in 10:2

NKJ  Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Mat 10:2 NKJ)

As "First Simon" is not followed by "Second Andrew", "Third James" etc... This is not a numbering system.  In addition, the LORD expressly forbade thinking any were PRWTOS in the "Chief" sense:

27 And whosoever will be chief (PRWTOS) among you, let him be your servant: (Mat 20:27 KJV)

Its not likely Matthew would disobey Christ and call him PRWTOS in that sense. The only sense remaining is "first" in order of existence, PTR Aramaic PaTaR (Hebrew PeTeR, 6363) is the firstborn of the gospel of Christ.



The lexical data is Petros was not a Greek name in Jesus' Day, neither was the Aramaic Cephas. The NT made these names popular.

So Christ is not calling Simon "Mr Cephas" in John 1:42, or "Mr Petros", that usage came after Christianity began.

But its clear Simon was called Petros before he met Christ:

NKJ  Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 (Mat 4:18 NKJ)

Synonyms exist, therefore your argument there couldn't be more than one word for "first" is odd:

From The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words

rı̂˒shônı̂y רִאשֹׁנִי (2) [Strong's Hebrew #7224]   1
rı̂˒shônı̂y, ree-sho-nee’; from 7223; first:— first.
qadmay קַדְמַי (2) [Strong's Hebrew #6933]   2
kad-mah’-ee; from a root corresp. to 6923; first:— first.
bikkûwr בִּכּוּר (2) [Strong's Hebrew #1061]   3
בִּכּוּר bikkûwr, bik-koor’; from 1069; the first-fruits of the crop:— first fruit (-ripe [fig
rê˒shı̂yth רֵאשִׁית (2) [Strong's Hebrew #7225]   5
ray-sheeth’; from the same as 7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (spec. a firstfruit
rı̂˒shôwn רִאשׁוֹן (2) [Strong's Hebrew #7223]   9
רִאשֹׁן rı̂˒shôn, ree-shone’; from 7221; first, in place, time or rank (as adj. or noun):—


« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 08:10:46 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2010, 09:12:17 PM »

I knew I had scanned the Aramaic thing before. It shows up in the apologetics of Dr. Scott Hahn.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Quote
Well, non-Catholics frequently claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock." Or other Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the Greek word for large rock, "I will build my Church." So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"

Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug, the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros."

Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9 percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow it.
Logged

Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2010, 09:36:07 PM »

Well, I'm glad to hear corroboration from Dr Hahn that the Aramaic Cephas can mean either little rock, i.e. PETROS, or big rock, i.e. PETRA. As regards the Protestant interpretation that Dr Hahn is attacking, namely that there is some significance in the fact that St Peter was called PETROS, rather than PETRA, that is irrelevant to Orthodox exegesis. I'm not aware that our opposition to Catholic interpretation of this passage rests on the alleged identification of St Peter with a 'little rock', as opposed to the 'big rock' Christ. Yes, other NT passages identify Christ with PETRA, but surely that only confirms the patristic consensus that the PETRA Christ spoke of refers to St Peter's confession of Christ as the Son of God. But given that, as Dr Hahn rightly notes, Aramaic CEPHAS does not distinguish between big and little rock, the name PETROS must have been chosen for no other reason than that it was the closest masculine cognate in the Greek language to the correct intended meaning of CEPHAS, namely 'big rock', or PETRA.

To me, therefore, the right way to think about it is that St Peter was named PETROS after his confession of Christ = PETRA.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2010, 09:46:13 PM »

I knew I had scanned the Aramaic thing before. It shows up in the apologetics of Dr. Scott Hahn.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Quote
Well, non-Catholics frequently claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock." Or other Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the Greek word for large rock, "I will build my Church." So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"

Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug, the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros."

Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9 percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow it.

I searched in vain for a relevant point, found none. I gather smear is the point, a Catholic argues Christ spoke Aramaic, I do the same, therefore we both are wrong.

Unfortunately for your brilliant point, I argue against his conclusion, FOR the classic Orthodox exegesis, apparently you left an important difference out.

People leave important information out when they are trying to deceive.

If Christ had said Cephas twice, or even once, Matthew would have translated it that way, just as John did in 1:42.

The real issue Catholics never address...If Matthew understood Christ saying Peter is the rock of the church, then PETROS should be repeated twice.

Petros could easily have been made to fit the text, especially as Catholics deny "petros" (a small stone)  is to be distinguished from "petra" a massive one.


They won't allow the difference, therefore nothing stands in the way of it reading:

Thou art Petros and upon this  Petros I will  build.

Except Jesus didn't mean that.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 09:54:20 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2010, 09:51:12 PM »

All this Aramaic and Greek is confusing. I'll stick with the King James. If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2010, 10:03:14 PM »

Well, I'm glad to hear corroboration from Dr Hahn that the Aramaic Cephas can mean either little rock, i.e. PETROS, or big rock, i.e. PETRA. As regards the Protestant interpretation that Dr Hahn is attacking, namely that there is some significance in the fact that St Peter was called PETROS, rather than PETRA, that is irrelevant to Orthodox exegesis. I'm not aware that our opposition to Catholic interpretation of this passage rests on the alleged identification of St Peter with a 'little rock', as opposed to the 'big rock' Christ. Yes, other NT passages identify Christ with PETRA, but surely that only confirms the patristic consensus that the PETRA Christ spoke of refers to St Peter's confession of Christ as the Son of God. But given that, as Dr Hahn rightly notes, Aramaic CEPHAS does not distinguish between big and little rock, the name PETROS must have been chosen for no other reason than that it was the closest masculine cognate in the Greek language to the correct intended meaning of CEPHAS, namely 'big rock', or PETRA.

To me, therefore, the right way to think about it is that St Peter was named PETROS after his confession of Christ = PETRA.

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

So Christ is using Peter's name as "firstborn" to make a point, as he confessed the truth of the Gospel of life publicly, he is really "the first" born of it. The PRWTOS (Mt 10:2). That is why Peter is listed first in all the apostolic lists. He is the first.

In other words, as PETROS does not mean "rock" to Christ, the antecedent of the metaphor rock cannot be Peter, it must exist before verse 18.  ONLY then is the grammar respected, and the antecedent can be that specific point of faith, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is the life giving Rock of the church.

It should be noted both "truth" and "revelation" are feminine, and the pronouns pointing to it are feminine. "Upon this The Rock" is all feminine" so people say the agreement is forward, but if PETROS does not mean rock to Christ, "Upon this" (points back to the divine revelation (or truth)  Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God that Peter confessed) "the Rock", the life giving rock which when struck, spills out living water.

Its that simple. Discard my exegesis at your own peril.

Its much harder to defeat a lie, if you agree with its premises.


While a PETRA can be "Sayings", such as "Jesus is the Christ, the son of God", and be built upon, that is not true of "confessions":

NKJ  Matthew 7:24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock(petra): (Mat 7:24 NKJ)

Never does scripture say a confession is a rock. You have no proof of the exegesis. That is why it fails the test, it isn't parsimonous to scripture.

Protestant scholarship has "given up the ghost" on this issue, as Scott Hahn says. They accepted the premises, so they lost the argument.

Once you generalize the grammar, bye bye any real defense against Rome's innovations.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 10:17:44 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2010, 10:18:57 PM »

Unfortunately for your brilliant point, I argue against his conclusion, FOR the classic Orthodox exegesis, apparently you left an important difference out.

I never really disagreed with the Aramaic points, but I've seen Orthodox take issue with it at CAF. I think they saw the author's name and decided he was probably wrong, even if he was directly rebutting St. Augustine (the only church father Protestants have much time for). Frankly, I thought you'd get a kick out of seeing it and wasn't sure how you'd react.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 10:20:02 PM by John Larocque » Logged

Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2010, 10:29:28 PM »

Unfortunately for your brilliant point, I argue against his conclusion, FOR the classic Orthodox exegesis, apparently you left an important difference out.

I never really disagreed with the Aramaic points, but I've seen Orthodox take issue with it at CAF. I think they saw the author's name and decided he was probably wrong, even if he was directly rebutting St. Augustine (the only church father Protestants have much time for). Frankly, I thought you'd get a kick out of seeing it and wasn't sure how you'd react.

I've done a lot of research on this, David Biven of the Jerusalem school argues Christ spoke this in Hebrew, others Greek. While all that is possible, I think it most likely Christ spoke all three languages, but mostly Aramaic:

NKJ  Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mat 27:46 NKJ)


In such a time of stress it would be natural to default to one's "home" language.

"Barjonah"  in vs 17 is Aramaic. If Christ wanted to say Peter was speaking divine revelation like a son of Jonah the prophet, then He did it by using the Aramaic BarJonah, and Matthew wanted us to know that, hence he didn't translate it into Greek.



« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 10:33:02 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2010, 10:32:04 PM »

Well, how does the metonymy work? Christ didn't just call Simon anything; He called him CEPHAS. Why did He call him CEPHAS? Because Simon had just confessed the divinity of Christ, the ROCK of faith, and by extension, the confession that Christ is the rock of faith. The point is not whether PETROS means the same thing as PETRA; the point is whether the 'rock' is to be identified with the individual Peter alone, or whether it is to be identified with the right confession of faith, the 'rock' after which Simon was named anew by Christ.

Under this interpretation, the passage of St Matthew means this: "Thou art a rock of faith, and upon this rock of faith I will build My church". So, even if we understand Christ to be honoring Peter for being the first to confess His Divinity, the honor depends entirely on Peter's right confession. If St Peter made a wrong confession, as he did at Christ's trial, when he betrayed Him three times, then this pledge of Christ does not hold. St Peter, or any bishop, is only a Rock of Faith so long as he truly and in fact confesses the right faith. According to the Catholics, however, the primacy of Peter, or his supposed successors the Roman Popes, does not depend on their confession of the right faith, but on their own persons.

By the way, your attacks against the consensus of the Fathers are not going to help you persuade anybody of your rightness. For the Orthodox, the consensus of the Fathers is the standard of the truth. If you attack them, that only tells us you are not interested in the truth.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #56 on: August 23, 2010, 11:20:23 PM »

Well, how does the metonymy work? Christ didn't just call Simon anything; He called him CEPHAS. Why did He call him CEPHAS? Because Simon had just confessed the divinity of Christ, the ROCK of faith, and by extension, the confession that Christ is the rock of faith. The point is not whether PETROS means the same thing as PETRA; the point is whether the 'rock' is to be identified with the individual Peter alone, or whether it is to be identified with the right confession of faith, the 'rock' after which Simon was named anew by Christ.

Under this interpretation, the passage of St Matthew means this: "Thou art a rock of faith, and upon this rock of faith I will build My church". So, even if we understand Christ to be honoring Peter for being the first to confess His Divinity, the honor depends entirely on Peter's right confession. If St Peter made a wrong confession, as he did at Christ's trial, when he betrayed Him three times, then this pledge of Christ does not hold. St Peter, or any bishop, is only a Rock of Faith so long as he truly and in fact confesses the right faith. According to the Catholics, however, the primacy of Peter, or his supposed successors the Roman Popes, does not depend on their confession of the right faith, but on their own persons.

By the way, your attacks against the consensus of the Fathers are not going to help you persuade anybody of your rightness. For the Orthodox, the consensus of the Fathers is the standard of the truth. If you attack them, that only tells us you are not interested in the truth.

1)You won't get it till you stop fusing different contexts together. Christ did not call Peter "Mr Petros " in John 1:42, therefore Mat 16:18 is different, unrelated.

Peter isn't the only one called "stones" in scripture:
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.(1Pe 2:4-6 KJV)

PETROS is Attic Greek for small stone, Koine lithos was supplanting it. Peter's use shows he believed the word is a synonym. Peter calls us the same thing Christ called him, precious living stones.

Cephas in Jn 1:42 an epithet, an idiom, not a proper name, and in the Aramaic Targums Cephas  refers to a small stone of grace, what buys favor, a "precious stone":
Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies," Aramaic KEPHA Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos;  
Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Aramaic KEPHA; Heb. eben  cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious reward.  [That is, a stone for a bribe, to buy favor].
-"Dictionary of the Targumim Talmud  Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic  Literature," Marcus Jastrow [Judaica  Press, NT, 1996], pp. 634-635).  

Also relevant is the Rockmass KEPHA/PETRA, which Moses was to strike once (Ex 17:6; 1 Cor 10:4) for living water to come out…
 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock PETRA that followed them: and that Rock PETRA was Christ. (1Co 10:4 KJV)

As we are "little Christs" (Χριστιανός)  it can be said our stones are a smaller version of Christ,  these give off living water by preaching the gospel of truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God:

 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (Joh 7:38 NKJ)


2) No it does not because the metaphor is about a rock being built upon...people don't build upon confessions.

That is why Protestant scholars gave up on the classic interpretation, because you cannot affirm, you must prove what you affirm. They found it impossible to document a confession was built upon elsewhere in scripture...there are no parallels to that idea. Therefore it would be special pleading to say it happens in Mat 16:18, a fallacy.

BUT you can find TRUTH as building material, Christ's sayings can be a PETRA:

24 "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock(petra):
 25 "and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock(petra).
(Mat 7:24-25 NKJ)

Now the connection to Peter's confession is direct and precise, its not the confession, its the content of what he confessed, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, that TRUTH is the Rock upon which the church is built.

It just so happens the Greek word for truth (ἀλήθεια) is feminine.  So also is "revelation" if you prefer that (ἀποκάλυψιν), Christ did say flesh and blood didn't reveal it to Peter.

Why is that important, because IF PETROS didn't mean "rock" to Christ, then the feminine  pronouns "UPON THIS" are pointing back to the antecedent, and "the rock" is adjectival.

"Upon this TRUTH the (life giving) Rock I will build my church."

Then the Greek grammar is precise, purposeful.

Moreover building the church on Peter or his confession in any way conflicts with the context:
NKJ  Matthew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."
 (Mat 16:23 NKJ)

Apart from Christ saying "Thou art Peter" and saying he gets the keys, the context is about Christ's identity, who do people say I am...etc.

Here again my exegesis fits, Peter is born again, so of course he gets keys, he is now a child of the kingdom...you give keys to your children, don't you?

But the entire context is about Christ's identity, as we see Christ ending the context with:

NKJ  Matthew 16:20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. (Mat 16:20 NKJ)


3)As for the fathers, its Orthodox hermeneutic they are equal to scripture, not mine, and by the way, not theirs either. You cannot find one Church father quoting another as scripture.

I wasn't attacking them, I was alluding to the futility of citing them as that only proves what they think, not what any Bible text is saying. T

he only problem with consensus of the Fathers is Catholics claim the same standard, and look how different you are from them.


Sola scriptura is smeared as producing zillions of denominations...but if you get past the propaganda, you will learn these zillions are in remarkable agreement. Being imperfect fallen creatures, they do tend to schism over very minor points of doctrine, sometimes even over the music in church.

Sola scriptura gets a bum rap, but at least its not special pleading. The basic premise is Scripture can be understood, otherwise why did God write it?

Am I to believe its written to confuse me? Then God is evil, not good.

When one investigates the schisms, you will learn it wasn't scripture that drove them apart, if was their fallen human nature....and often just plain apostasy...as we see more and more of today.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2010, 11:32:08 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #57 on: August 24, 2010, 12:36:10 AM »

You are correct that Cephas is an epithet. It was not used as a given name before. The same goes for Petros; it is meant as an epithet, since St Peter's original name was Simon. As St John tells us, Petros is the Greek for Cephas. So when St Matthew says Christ called Simon "Petros", we should understand that this records the same event as that recorded the same event. Yes, the St John passage takes place when Christ first meets St Peter, but note that in St John, Christ says "thou SHALT be called Cephas". Future tense: ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς {ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος}. Clearly, both refer to the same naming event. St John chooses to record the Aramaic along with the Greek, St Matthew chooses to record only the Greek translation. It's as simple as that.

So the text, when both Gospels are laid side by side, clearly indicate that Christ, speaking Aramaic, called Simon CEPHAS, and that his words, translated into Greek, mean "thou art PETROS". There is no contradiction between Matthew and John. The only reason the evangelists translated the epithet CEPHAS as PETROS is because PETROS is masculine, although the Greek word with the more accurate meaning is PETRA. Because of the feminine gender, PETRA couldn't be used in the Greek version to translate the epithet for Simon, but it could be used to translate CEPHAS in the passage where Christ explains the reason for naming Simon CEPHAS, i.e. Matthew 16:18.

The purpose of the epithet PETROS, or CEPHAS, is that St Peter can indeed be understood to be the Rock of Faith upon which the Church of Christ is built, but only so far and so long as St Peter continues to make the right confession of faith, since it is on the rock of confession that Christ actually builds His Church. If St Peter, or his successors makes the wrong confession, then he is no longer the Rock, since how can Peter be identified with the Rock of Faith if he does not confess the right faith? So the identification of PETROS with PETRA does not in any way support the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

And although Christ probably used the same Aramaic word for Peter's epithet and for the "rock" of the Church, surely there is something providential in the fact that the Greek translates the two by different words, indicating that we are to interpret Christ's promise as referring to St Peter's confession, and not to St Peter's person? For "God is no respecter of persons".

I'm sorry, but your theory that Petros has nothing to do with "rock", but is some Aramaic loanword from Greek meaning "firstborn", is wrong. You gave it a good run for its money, and I was taken in for a short time, but it just doesn't hold up to the evidence. And your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is heretical, by the way.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #58 on: August 24, 2010, 01:16:07 AM »

You are correct that Cephas is an epithet. It was not used as a given name before. The same goes for Petros; it is meant as an epithet, since St Peter's original name was Simon. As St John tells us, Petros is the Greek for Cephas. So when St Matthew says Christ called Simon "Petros", we should understand that this records the same event as that recorded the same event. Yes, the St John passage takes place when Christ first meets St Peter, but note that in St John, Christ says "thou SHALT be called Cephas". Future tense: ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς {ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος}. Clearly, both refer to the same naming event. St John chooses to record the Aramaic along with the Greek, St Matthew chooses to record only the Greek translation. It's as simple as that.

So the text, when both Gospels are laid side by side, clearly indicate that Christ, speaking Aramaic, called Simon CEPHAS, and that his words, translated into Greek, mean "thou art PETROS". There is no contradiction between Matthew and John. The only reason the evangelists translated the epithet CEPHAS as PETROS is because PETROS is masculine, although the Greek word with the more accurate meaning is PETRA. Because of the feminine gender, PETRA couldn't be used in the Greek version to translate the epithet for Simon, but it could be used to translate CEPHAS in the passage where Christ explains the reason for naming Simon CEPHAS, i.e. Matthew 16:18.

The purpose of the epithet PETROS, or CEPHAS, is that St Peter can indeed be understood to be the Rock of Faith upon which the Church of Christ is built, but only so far and so long as St Peter continues to make the right confession of faith, since it is on the rock of confession that Christ actually builds His Church. If St Peter, or his successors makes the wrong confession, then he is no longer the Rock, since how can Peter be identified with the Rock of Faith if he does not confess the right faith? So the identification of PETROS with PETRA does not in any way support the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

And although Christ probably used the same Aramaic word for Peter's epithet and for the "rock" of the Church, surely there is something providential in the fact that the Greek translates the two by different words, indicating that we are to interpret Christ's promise as referring to St Peter's confession, and not to St Peter's person? For "God is no respecter of persons".

I'm sorry, but your theory that Petros has nothing to do with "rock", but is some Aramaic loanword from Greek meaning "firstborn", is wrong. You gave it a good run for its money, and I was taken in for a short time, but it just doesn't hold up to the evidence. And your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is heretical, by the way.

I've patiently answered your questions, you ignore my answers...perhaps they are too long, so lets shorten it.

What you say is impossible because Simon was known as PETROS before he met Christ:

 18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 19 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
 (Mat 4:18-19 NKJ)

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #59 on: August 24, 2010, 02:12:07 AM »

No. St Matthew means that this Simon whom Jesus met at that time was the one who would later be known as Peter. The reason St Matthew applies the epithet Peter already at this time, although Christ had not yet addressed him as Petros, is because there was another Apostle called Simon, namely the Zealot, and St Matthew is making it clear that it was St Peter that Christ met at this time, not the other Simon. OK?
Logged
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #60 on: August 24, 2010, 02:37:04 AM »

No. St Matthew means that this Simon whom Jesus met at that time was the one who would later be known as Peter. The reason St Matthew applies the epithet Peter already at this time, although Christ had not yet addressed him as Petros, is because there was another Apostle called Simon, namely the Zealot, and St Matthew is making it clear that it was St Peter that Christ met at this time, not the other Simon. OK?

Yes, I definitely agree.

The occurrence of the name Peter attached to the name Simon in verses preceding chapter 16 is simply anachronistic. It is similar to Jesus' healing Simon's mother-in-law in chapter 4 of Luke's Gospel before making Simon a disciple of His, which is narrated in chapter 5.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,342


metron ariston


« Reply #61 on: August 24, 2010, 08:44:04 AM »

What you say is impossible because Simon was known as PETROS before he met Christ:

 18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 19 Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."
 (Mat 4:18-19 NKJ)

That's a very common figure in ancient literature, called prolepsis.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #62 on: August 24, 2010, 09:38:38 AM »

No. St Matthew means that this Simon whom Jesus met at that time was the one who would later be known as Peter. The reason St Matthew applies the epithet Peter already at this time, although Christ had not yet addressed him as Petros, is because there was another Apostle called Simon, namely the Zealot, and St Matthew is making it clear that it was St Peter that Christ met at this time, not the other Simon. OK?

NKJ  Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 (Mat 4:18 NKJ)

The Semitic name Simon is shared by four others in Matthew alone (10:4; 13:55; 26:6; 27:32), so a nickname was required to distinguished this Simon (10:2; 16:18) from the others.  The question is, who gave him this nickname, Simon's parents or Jesus in John 1:42.

Andrew is always second when listed with Simon indicating Peter is the elder, likely the Firstborn which status is important in Semitic culture, worthy of mention via name or nickname (Bocheru "Firstborn";  Cain "First"). That PETROS was an Aramaic name meaning "firstborn" was documented in the opening post of this thread. So Simon's parents could have given Simon the nickname "PETROS".  That possibility never occurred to most because they incorrectly assume Simon is called PETROS in John 1:42...but is he?

40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
 41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah " (which is translated, the Christ).
 42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas " (which is translated, A Stone). (Joh 1:40-42 NKJ)


The lexical evidence has neither "Cephas" (Aramaic) or "Petros" (Greek) as proper nouns when Jesus spoke this. Therefore He is not calling Simon "Mr. Petros" or "Mr. Cephas", he is calling him a "stone" in Aramaic, a "cephas". Years later John translates this common noun into Greek as a "petros." Capitalizing "Cephas" and "Stone" then is unhistorical, reading into these words a meaning that didn't exist when the event occurred.

Naturally understood, verse 40 implies Simon had the name PETROS before Christ called him "a stone."

Christ surnamed Simon Petros, in Mat 16:18 "Thou art Petros," not in John 1:42.

Back to Mat 4:18, when naturally read the Greek does not indicate future reality, its present tense:

Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον (Mat 4:18) Simon the(one) being-said Petros.

Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (Mat 27:17) Jesus the(one) being-said Christ
Σίμωνα τὸν καλούμενον ζηλωτὴν (Luk 6:15) Simon the(one) being-called Zealot
Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην,  (Luk 22:3) Judas the(one) being-called Iscariot
τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον (Luk 23:33) place the(one) being-called Calvary
τὸν λεγόμενον Κρανίου Τόπον, (Joh 19:17) [the place] the(one) being-said Skull

NOT "going to be called," but "is called" is parsimonous.

With these facts Matthew 16:18 is clearer. Simon was already called "First," so when Christ says "Thou art First" he was identifying Simon as the first born of the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ (16:17):


16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; (Mat 16:16-18 KJV)

No doubt this event inspired Paul to write:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:8-10 KJV)

In Mat 16:18 Christ is reciprocating, Peter identifies Him as the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus identifies Simon as the "First" born of the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ, the PETRA upon which He would build His church.

The truth of a saying can be the PETRA foundation of a building:

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(PETRA):
 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock(PETRA). (Mat 7:24-25 KJV)

Context confirms this exegesis, as an heir in Christ Peter receives the keys to the estate. As the "Firstborn" Peter's key is plural, "keys" in a plural of majesty, he is the "First." (Compare "keys" Rev 1:18; "heavens" Mat 3:2; 2 Cor 5:1; "Crowns" Zech 9:11; Cattles="Behemoth" Job 40:15).

Matthew confirms Simon is the "FIRST" in 10:2

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Mat 10:2 KJV)

πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος  (Mat 10:2) First Simon the(one) being said Petros.

"First" when listed first is redundant unless it refers to Simon being the First of the Twelve, the one called [in Aramaic] PETROS.

PRWTOS cannot indicate the position of Simon since no other numbers follow.

Nor can PRWTOS mean "Chief of the apostles" Simon as that would violate Christ's teaching:

27 "And whoever desires to be first (πρῶτος) among you, let him be your slave--
 28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mat 20:27-28 NKJ)

Given the facts, in 10:2 Matthew is translating the Aramaic PETROS as the Greek PRWTOS.



Just as the other disciples had Aramaic names, so did Simon PETROS. Transliterated into Greek its a homonym of petros/stone and hence the generalization error confusing these two different words began once Aramaic speaking Jews familiar the meaning of with names in Israel in Christ's day, ceased to be in the church.


The autographs alone are inerrant. Of course later copyists would inflect PETROS which, when used as Peter's name, should be indeclinable.


« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 09:58:15 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,342


metron ariston


« Reply #63 on: August 24, 2010, 11:14:18 AM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #64 on: August 24, 2010, 02:34:40 PM »

Interesting, pensateomnia. Alfred's thesis seems to be that, even if Christ called St Peter "Cephas", which happens to mean "Petros" in Greek, St Peter was already called Petros before he met Christ, only that his original name of Petros meant "firstborn" in Aramaic. So it was pure coincidence that the Greek translation of his new Aramaic epithet Cephas happened to look exactly the same as his original name.

Your own thesis, that Petros was already a common Greek name could also be compatible with Alfred's thesis. All we do is say that St Peter already had a Greek, not an Aramaic name "Petros", and this just happened to be identical in form to the Greek translation of his later epithet "Cephas". As you note, the Greek "Petros" was transliterated into several other languages of the time.

There is still the problem that in Greek there is a semantic distinction between Petros and Petra, and that according to Christ's own explanation of the epithet, it is Petra, "large rock or outcrop", that is meant. Why didn't Christ say: "σὺ εἶ Πέτρα"?

My own solution (and please correct me if this makes no sense) is that St Peter did not have the name Petros before he met Christ. Christ gave him the Aramaic epithet Cephas, and St John and St Matthew translate this as "Petros", not "Petra", partly because it was masculine, but perhaps more importantly because, as you note, Petros was already a common name in Greek. So it was natural to translate the epithet as Petros, even though the intended meaning of Cephas was closer to Petra. In other words, the evangelists gave a somewhat loose translation.

Also, as I noted before, there might be something providential at work here. Even if Christ used the Aramaic Cephas both as St Peter's new epithet, and as the "rock" upon which He would build His church, the fact that Greek renders the first by Petros and the second by Petra may have anticipated the later heretical dogma of papal infallibility, which rests so heavily upon the identification of the "rock" with the person of St Peter. Of course, you note that Cephas is not the only Aramaic word that could be translated as "Petra" (although the context suggests it was the word used), and in any case, basing a novel theory on a purely hypothetical Aramaic substrate is scientifically dubious.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #65 on: August 24, 2010, 02:45:03 PM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.
I'll just add to your all well founded points, that the name "Rock" or "Stone" is common enough in many languages, including Aramaic "Eben." Yet they all, and all do so early, borrow Greek "Petros" into transliteration, Aramaic "Petra," "Petros" (the forn of the latter in particular showing it is borrowed, not a native Aramaic name).
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 02:47:42 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #66 on: August 24, 2010, 05:07:12 PM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.

I was curious if the Orthodox care about the Aramaic substrata, so I looked up how they treat "ABBA" and, contrary to your argument, they cared about the Aramaic substrata!

  But why? Why all this fuss about a simple Aramaic word? Well, it is because — and modern biblical research has convincingly shown that —“Abba” actually means “Daddy”!
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/tarazi_name_of_god.htm


That being the case your response to me is odd.

Care to revise it?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 05:07:38 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #67 on: August 24, 2010, 05:09:10 PM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.

I was curious if the Orthodox care about the Aramaic substrata, so I looked up how they treat "ABBA" and, contrary to your argument, they cared about the Aramaic substrata!

  But why? Why all this fuss about a simple Aramaic word? Well, it is because — and modern biblical research has convincingly shown that —“Abba” actually means “Daddy”!
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/tarazi_name_of_god.htm


That being the case your response to me is odd.

Care to revise it?

Why should HE revise his statements just because YOU find them odd? Huh
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #68 on: August 24, 2010, 05:11:52 PM »

Interesting, pensateomnia. Alfred's thesis seems to be that, even if Christ called St Peter "Cephas", which happens to mean "Petros" in Greek, St Peter was already called Petros before he met Christ, only that his original name of Petros meant "firstborn" in Aramaic. So it was pure coincidence that the Greek translation of his new Aramaic epithet Cephas happened to look exactly the same as his original name.

Not coincidence.

John chose the Attic PETROS in Jn 1:42 to translate Cephas because he was aware of Mat 16:18 Janus Parallelism on PETROS, where Jesus used BOTH the Aramaic meaning "firstborn" and the Greek meaning "Rock", and is giving it more depth linking Cephas to it.

Otherwise he would have used lithos, the usual word for "stone".

« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 05:25:48 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #69 on: August 24, 2010, 05:29:21 PM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.

I was curious if the Orthodox care about the Aramaic substrata, so I looked up how they treat "ABBA" and, contrary to your argument, they cared about the Aramaic substrata!

  But why? Why all this fuss about a simple Aramaic word? Well, it is because — and modern biblical research has convincingly shown that —“Abba” actually means “Daddy”!
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/tarazi_name_of_god.htm


That being the case your response to me is odd.

Care to revise it?

Why should HE revise his statements just because YOU find them odd? Huh

He couldn't be more wrong, the Orthodox clearly do care about Aramaic substrata...There are lots of Aramaic words in the NT, if you don't care about them its because you don't care about God's word.

So I thought he might like t rephrase his argument, I'm perfectly willing to treat its revision, otherwise I move on.

In fact, perhaps someone ought to alert that Orthodox research institute, they might be very interested in the aramaic substrata of PETROS, even if you gents are not.

I just did...but it would be better coming from one of you Orthodox folks.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 05:37:14 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #70 on: August 24, 2010, 05:34:19 PM »


Sola scriptura gets a bum rap, but at least its not special pleading. The basic premise is Scripture can be understood, otherwise why did God write it?

Am I to believe its written to confuse me? Then God is evil, not good.


No, you're confusing yourself. You're not interpreting the Bible within the context it was created in (that is, within the Church, alongside the Church Fathers, the Liturgy, Icons, etc etc). The Bible as such never existed apart from Holy Tradition, so why would you expect it to make sense apart from it?

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, so without a foundation of truth, it would indeed be hard to understand. Kind of like with the Ethiopian eunuch.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 05:35:35 PM by bogdan » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #71 on: August 24, 2010, 06:15:42 PM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.

I was curious if the Orthodox care about the Aramaic substrata, so I looked up how they treat "ABBA" and, contrary to your argument, they cared about the Aramaic substrata!

  But why? Why all this fuss about a simple Aramaic word? Well, it is because — and modern biblical research has convincingly shown that —“Abba” actually means “Daddy”!
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/tarazi_name_of_god.htm


That being the case your response to me is odd.

Care to revise it?

Why should HE revise his statements just because YOU find them odd? Huh

He couldn't be more wrong, the Orthodox clearly do care about Aramaic substrata...There are lots of Aramaic words in the NT, if you don't care about them its because you don't care about God's word.

So I thought he might like t rephrase his argument, I'm perfectly willing to treat its revision, otherwise I move on.
No, you need to accept his words as he offered them.  If he's wrong, he's wrong.  But don't ask him to revise his words because you don't like them.  That demonstrates a controlling attitude that will only destroy what authority you have in this debate.  You can control what you say, but don't try to control what someone else says.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 06:16:11 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #72 on: August 24, 2010, 06:30:18 PM »

Patristic exegesis fails because its imprecise, the grammar expressly says "upon this very Rock" I will build, and if you accept Petros = Petra,  then he the rock of the church.

That is what the text says, regardless how you dance away from it.

My exegesis makes the connection to the specific point of faith Peter confessed, by showing PETROS was not "Rock" to Christ and His disciples, it meant "Firstborn."

First, any exegesis has to be placed within its context in the pericope and the broader structure of Matthew. Doing so dismisses any Papal interpretation of the text, regardless of the theoretical Aramaic substratum, so this entire crusade is totally unnecessary.

Second, even if the above were not true, any argument based on the Aramaic substratum is hypothetical. It's tantalizing, but it proves nothing. We can never know what the Aramaic was (or even if it was). The text we have is Greek. And that's what we have to deal with.

Third, if we ignore that reality, and focus on an imagined Aramaic substratum, we still get no where, since, as Caragounis showed, there are a variety of Aramaic terms that could have been behind πέτρα as well. In fact, for those interested in the imagined Aramaic, the substratum of πέτρα is far more significant (that of Petros being obvious). See Thomas Finley's "'Upon this Rock': Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence" in Aramaic Studies, Vol 4.2 (2006): 133-151.

Fourth, putting that aside, before one could accept your novel idea (against the clear indication of the NT sources and the Church Fathers), one would have to establish in many independent Aramaic sources from the time period that "Petros" was an actual Aramaic word (not a borrowed Greek word) and it meant "Firstborn" in first-century Aramaic. I haven't seen any such proof. In fact, most of the secondary sources quoted in your original post say exactly the opposite. With one exception, they make it clear that Petros is a "Greek name," not an Aramaic name, which was borrowed from Greek and transliterated into Aramaic. Their point, contra Oscar Cullmann's wild speculation, is that "Petros" is well attested as a Greek name in the prosopography of the time. In fact, you'll find it transliterated into several languages in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. Simply because it appears in these various languages doesn't mean it's a Latin name or a Syriac name or an Aramaic name (it's not). It means it's a reasonably common name, which all kinds of ancient peoples borrowed from Greek.

I was curious if the Orthodox care about the Aramaic substrata, so I looked up how they treat "ABBA" and, contrary to your argument, they cared about the Aramaic substrata!

  But why? Why all this fuss about a simple Aramaic word? Well, it is because — and modern biblical research has convincingly shown that —“Abba” actually means “Daddy”!
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/tarazi_name_of_god.htm


That being the case your response to me is odd.

Care to revise it?

Why should HE revise his statements just because YOU find them odd? Huh

He couldn't be more wrong, the Orthodox clearly do care about Aramaic substrata...There are lots of Aramaic words in the NT, if you don't care about them its because you don't care about God's word.

So I thought he might like t rephrase his argument, I'm perfectly willing to treat its revision, otherwise I move on.
No, you need to accept his words as he offered them.  If he's wrong, he's wrong.  But don't ask him to revise his words because you don't like them.  That demonstrates a controlling attitude that will only destroy what authority you have in this debate.  You can control what you say, but don't try to control what someone else says.

I didn't mean it that way, I thought his comments showed some depth, when not decrying substrata.

I thought once the agenda ceased, we might have a good discussion on other objections he might have.

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.



« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 06:31:28 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #73 on: August 24, 2010, 06:36:07 PM »


Sola scriptura gets a bum rap, but at least its not special pleading. The basic premise is Scripture can be understood, otherwise why did God write it?

Am I to believe its written to confuse me? Then God is evil, not good.


No, you're confusing yourself. You're not interpreting the Bible within the context it was created in (that is, within the Church, alongside the Church Fathers, the Liturgy, Icons, etc etc). The Bible as such never existed apart from Holy Tradition, so why would you expect it to make sense apart from it?

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, so without a foundation of truth, it would indeed be hard to understand. Kind of like with the Ethiopian eunuch.

Lets see how much tradition you have absorbed. I vaguely recall ECF's saying Peter was firstborn of the faith, or something similar...which dovetails nicely with my thesis by the way. But I can't recall where I saw that, to see if my vague recollection is right.

Is it? You mention the Fathers, surely you know?

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #74 on: August 24, 2010, 06:43:34 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 06:44:19 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2010, 06:57:08 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.



Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2010, 07:00:22 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #77 on: August 24, 2010, 07:10:28 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #78 on: August 24, 2010, 07:31:12 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2010, 07:54:47 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.

Did you alert the Orthodox Research Center to read my thesis...perhaps they can aid you in debunking it.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2010, 08:46:47 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.

Did you alert the Orthodox Research Center to read my thesis...perhaps they can aid you in debunking it.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html
No, I never even thought your thesis worth the time of day.  Why would anyone need to consult with the ORI to find the material necessary for a proper refutation.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2010, 09:22:13 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.

Did you alert the Orthodox Research Center to read my thesis...perhaps they can aid you in debunking it.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html
No, I never even thought your thesis worth the time of day.  Why would anyone need to consult with the ORI to find the material necessary for a proper refutation.

That was satire...you should be interested and if it proves sound, glad...it does "clinch" the classic Orthodox interpretation...

You think you got that nailed...but a billion or so Catholics beg to differ. And you proposed audiences must accept for it to be true, there's a billion you haven't convinced.

Of course, there is some egg on Orthodox face also, a lowly plow boy with a Bible discovered it. Sola scriptura, it enables recovery of apostolic doctrine from the heap of tradition burying it.


« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 09:28:38 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2010, 09:30:08 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.

Did you alert the Orthodox Research Center to read my thesis...perhaps they can aid you in debunking it.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html
No, I never even thought your thesis worth the time of day.  Why would anyone need to consult with the ORI to find the material necessary for a proper refutation.

That was satire...you should be interested and if it proves sound, glad...it does "clinch" the classic Orthodox interpretation...

You think you got that nailed...
Got what nailed?  I'm not the one running around here with a hammer thinking everything looks like a nail.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2010, 09:38:52 PM »


Sola scriptura gets a bum rap, but at least its not special pleading. The basic premise is Scripture can be understood, otherwise why did God write it?

Am I to believe its written to confuse me? Then God is evil, not good.


No, you're confusing yourself. You're not interpreting the Bible within the context it was created in (that is, within the Church, alongside the Church Fathers, the Liturgy, Icons, etc etc). The Bible as such never existed apart from Holy Tradition, so why would you expect it to make sense apart from it?

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, so without a foundation of truth, it would indeed be hard to understand. Kind of like with the Ethiopian eunuch.

Lets see how much tradition you have absorbed. I vaguely recall ECF's saying Peter was firstborn of the faith, or something similar...which dovetails nicely with my thesis by the way. But I can't recall where I saw that, to see if my vague recollection is right.

Is it? You mention the Fathers, surely you know?



My comment wasn't directed squarely at the subject at hand, but more at the general bent of your many trollific posts and their general reliance on the sola scriptura heresy.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #84 on: August 25, 2010, 10:30:17 AM »

Interesting, pensateomnia. Alfred's thesis seems to be that, even if Christ called St Peter "Cephas", which happens to mean "Petros" in Greek, St Peter was already called Petros before he met Christ, only that his original name of Petros meant "firstborn" in Aramaic. So it was pure coincidence that the Greek translation of his new Aramaic epithet Cephas happened to look exactly the same as his original name.

Not coincidence.

John chose the Attic PETROS in Jn 1:42 to translate Cephas because he was aware of Mat 16:18 Janus Parallelism on PETROS, where Jesus used BOTH the Aramaic meaning "firstborn" and the Greek meaning "Rock", and is giving it more depth linking Cephas to it.

Otherwise he would have used lithos, the usual word for "stone".




I wasn't clear, I'll restate this:

Scholars misread the connection between Jn 1:42 and Mat 16:18. They connect PETROS to PETROS as if these are the same...BUT Jesus did not call Simon "Mr. Cephas" or "Mr. Petros" in John 1:42, that is dissimilar to Mt 16:18, there He did call Simon "Mr Petros" saying "You ARE Petros" to indicate his name actually means what it signifies, "Firstborn."


The connection John sees is not explaining where Petros comes from, he sees Peter as a "cephas," "lively stone" (cp 1 Pet 2:5), part of the house having Christ, the cornerstone, and so imparts life to others by instructing them in the truth of God.

The Petra upon which the church is built, is Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, Peter is the one who confessed that, a like figure or anti type from Greater to lesser: PETRA > petros-kepa, Big Rock to little stone, but both imparting truth for life, albeit the small gets its life giving message, because he is born from it, from the greater PETRA. So John sees all this as connected, and somewhat analogous,...in that manner he adds depth to Peter having the keys, binding and loosing, that is, in instructing others in the Way. We too are lively stones instructing in the Way of God, by communicating God's Word to others, and especially the PETRA of life, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Amen and Amen.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 10:55:08 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #85 on: August 25, 2010, 10:45:17 AM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.

Did you alert the Orthodox Research Center to read my thesis...perhaps they can aid you in debunking it.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html
No, I never even thought your thesis worth the time of day.  Why would anyone need to consult with the ORI to find the material necessary for a proper refutation.

That was satire...you should be interested and if it proves sound, glad...it does "clinch" the classic Orthodox interpretation...

You think you got that nailed...
Got what nailed?  I'm not the one running around here with a hammer thinking everything looks like a nail.
or a square peg in need of rounding
Your slipping...not conjuring up the usual number of icons to slay me.
This one is all we need:
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #86 on: August 25, 2010, 04:10:23 PM »

My thesis has only improved, gotten stronger, because objections forced me to dig deeper, to find answers...which often revealed aspects I didn't notice before.
Just a suggestion.  One doesn't usually tout the strength of his own thesis--that's cockiness.  One argues his thesis and sees if it's strong enough to convince his audience.  If you cannot convince your audience to embrace your point of view, you have failed.

Just stating a fact.

The audience is not the final arbiter of truth, if it were, then all justice could be left to a mob.

Christ's little flock spoke truth, even though the larger Jewish audience didn't think so.
I'm not speaking of "truth".  I'm speaking of your ability to convince us that your thesis IS truth.  So far you have failed, and failed miserably.

I can only lead to water, not make 'em drink.


Yes, and the water to which you're leading us stinks.

Did you alert the Orthodox Research Center to read my thesis...perhaps they can aid you in debunking it.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/index.html
No, I never even thought your thesis worth the time of day.  Why would anyone need to consult with the ORI to find the material necessary for a proper refutation.

That was satire...you should be interested and if it proves sound, glad...it does "clinch" the classic Orthodox interpretation...

You think you got that nailed...
Got what nailed?  I'm not the one running around here with a hammer thinking everything looks like a nail.
or a square peg in need of rounding
Your slipping...not conjuring up the usual number of icons to slay me.
This one is all we need:
Just can't put that hammer down, can you?

move away from the hammer.

Wouldn't it be more rewarding if you discussed or contradicted one of my premises?
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #87 on: August 25, 2010, 06:17:50 PM »

Wouldn't it be more rewarding if you discussed or contradicted one of my premises?
I already have, yet you continue on argueing a refuted, and for us irrelevant, "argument."  You'll have to go play with the Vatican to get someone on your merry-go-round on this issue.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #88 on: August 25, 2010, 09:23:02 PM »

Wouldn't it be more rewarding if you discussed or contradicted one of my premises?
I already have, yet you continue on arguing a refuted, and for us irrelevant, "argument."  You'll have to go play with the Vatican to get someone on your merry-go-round on this issue.

With all due respect,99.9% of your "replies" are analogous to the pictures, irrelevant material.

I usually don't respond to claims unless they are relevant to my point.

In other words, when I say to a Catholic the first pope Peter was not infallible in his apostolic tradition in Galatians, and that Paul warns against errors even by the apostles saying "if we or an angel speak otherwise, let them be accursed"

 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
 (Gal 1:8-9 NKJ)

So popes cannot be infallible... and the Catholic replies with copy paste of their Catechism and quotes about what they believe as a Catholic---its the same to me as pictures of icons etc...irrelevant to my point, not requiring a response, my point is still standing, undiminished.

In other words, anyone reading the exchange will see my point remained undiminished, that I had "won" the argument....it therefore would be foolish for me to change the subject to some of the irrelevant copy paste posted in response.

Most conversation is "I say my piece, you say yours, never do we actually listen to each other and discuss what the other said." I'm not here for that kind of conversation which is fine in  social interactions, when people casually meet in public and momentarily converse before going their separate ways.


I am here to argue a position, a point, and the reasons why I believe that correct.

The response I like most, is when people produce reasons why they believe my reasons are in error, which would make my conclusion in error.

To me, that is conversation...intellectually stimulating which is very satisfying in and of itself, whether we come to an agreement or not, I was forced to see things from another perspective.

And I would think you must get little satisfaction from copy pasting your beliefs, which you do quite well and in great quantity, but get no response from me. That cannot be all that satisfying for you. For me, its just irrelevant material to wade through, nothing more. Claims without reasons for the claim are like rear-ends, everyone's got'em...and when the claims are irrelevant to a point or the reasons why I believe the point correct, I ignore them and move on.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 09:42:27 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #89 on: August 29, 2010, 12:53:13 AM »

And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter(PETROS), and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
 (Mat 4:18 NKJ)

The Semitic name Simon is shared by four others in Matthew alone (10:4; 13:55; 26:6; 27:32), so the nickname PETROS was required to distinguished this Simon (10:2; 16:18) from the others.  The question is, who gave him this nickname, Simon's parents or Jesus in John 1:42?

Andrew is always second when listed with Simon indicating Peter is the elder, likely the Firstborn which status is important in Semitic culture, worthy of mention via name or nickname (Bocheru "Firstborn";  Cain "First"). That PETROS was an Aramaic name meaning "firstborn" is documented at the end of this post. So Simon's parents could have given Simon the nickname "PETROS".  That possibility never occurred to most because they incorrectly assume Jesus surnamed Simon PETROS in John 1:42...but did He?

40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (PETROS) brother.
 41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah " (which is translated, the Christ).
 42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas " (which is translated, A Stone). (Joh 1:40-42 NKJ)


The lexical evidence has neither "Cephas" (Aramaic) or "Petros" (Greek) as proper nouns when Jesus spoke this. Therefore He is not calling Simon "Mr. Petros" or "Mr. Cephas", he is calling him a "stone" in Aramaic, a "cephas". Years later John translates this common noun into Greek as a "petros." Capitalizing "Cephas" and "Stone" then is unhistorical, reading into these words a meaning that didn't exist when the event occurred.

Naturally understood, verse 40 implies Simon had the name PETROS before Christ called him "a stone."

Scholars misread the connection John draws between Jn 1:42 and Mat 16:18. They connect PETROS to PETROS as if John wanted to explain how Simon got the name Petros. That cannot be correct because  Jesus did not call Simon "Mr. Cephas" or "Mr. Petros" in John 1:42,  so it is dissimilar to Mt 16:18 where "Mr. Petros" is meant: "You ARE Petros."


John sees Simon kepa as "a chip off the old block," a "lively stone" (cp 1 Pet 2:5) in God's temple, Jesus being the cornerstone. Greater to lesser analogy, PETRA >petros/kepa, Big Rock to little stone, both emitting life giving truth albeit the smaller was born from the greater when it confessed the PETRA Truth Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. 

This adds depth to Peter's having the keys, binding and loosing instructing others in the Way of God just as the living stones in God's Temple  instruct others also revealing  the key of Jesus' identity that opens heaven's door.

This explains John's choice of  PETROS over more popular LITHOS, he is connecting it to PETRA in Mat 16:18.

16 And Simon he surnamed (EPITITHEMI) Peter (PETROS);
17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (EPITITHEMI) them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: (Mar 3:16-17 KJV)

Boanerges is an epithet, idiom transferring to the pair the meaning "sons of thunder". It follows Jesus transferred to Simon a meaning, "Firstborn" in Matthew 16:18, not John 1:42 where John writing years later explains Christ used "cepha"  to mean "a stone."

Hence the Makarism Blessing in Mat 16:17 and the Aramaic "BarJonah" rather than its Greek translation. Like Jonah the prophet (Jon 2:2ff; cp Mat 16:4)), the PaTaR (firstborn) has risen from the dead preaching divine revelation.  Blessed indeed. All who confess Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, via divine revelation, are born again (Rom 10:8ff; John 1:12; 1 John 4:15). Unlike confessions inspired by human fear and awe (Mat 14:33; Joh 1:49) this confession is unique, inspired by divine revelation and appears to be archetype for  Rom 10:5ff.

Therefore the grammar of Mat 16:18 is precise, Jesus speaks TO Simon ABOUT the Truth-Rock.

So Jesus surnamed Simon Petros, in Mat 16:18 "Thou art Petros," not in John 1:42.

Back to Mat 4:18, when naturally read the Greek does not indicate future reality, its present tense:

Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον (Mat 4:18) Simon the(one) being-said Petros.

Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (Mat 27:17) Jesus the(one) being-said Christ
Σίμωνα τὸν καλούμενον ζηλωτὴν (Luk 6:15) Simon the(one) being-called Zealot
Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Ἰσκαριώτην,  (Luk 22:3) Judas the(one) being-called Iscariot
τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον (Luk 23:33) place the(one) being-called Skull
τὸν λεγόμενον Κρανίου Τόπον, (Joh 19:17) the(one) being-said Skull Place

NOT "going to be called," but "is called" is parsimonous.

With these facts Matthew 16:18 is clearer. Simon was already called "First," so when Christ says "Thou art First" he was identifying Simon as the first born of the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ (16:17):


16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; (Mat 16:16-18 KJV)

In Mat 16:18 Christ is reciprocating, Peter identifies Him as the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus identifies Simon as the "First" born of the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ, the PETRA upon which He would build His church.

The truth of a saying can be the PETRA foundation of a building:

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(PETRA):
 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock(PETRA). (Mat 7:24-25 KJV)

Context confirms this exegesis, as an heir in Christ Peter receives the keys to the estate. As the "Firstborn" Peter's key is plural, "keys" in a plural of majesty, he is the "First." (Compare "keys" Rev 1:18; "heavens" Mat 3:2; 2 Cor 5:1; "Crowns" Zech 9:11; Cattles="Behemoth" Job 40:15).

Matthew confirms Simon is the "FIRST" in 10:2

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (Mat 10:2 KJV)

πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος  (Mat 10:2) First Simon the(one) being said Petros.

"First" when listed first is redundant unless it refers to Simon being the First of the Twelve, the one called [in Aramaic] PETROS.

PRWTOS cannot indicate the position of Simon in the list since no other numbers follow.

Nor can PRWTOS mean "Chief of the apostles" Simon as that would violate Christ's teaching:

27 "And whoever desires to be first (πρῶτος) among you, let him be your slave--
 28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Mat 20:27-28 NKJ)

Given the facts, in 10:2 Matthew is translating the Aramaic PETROS as the Greek PRWTOS.



Just as the other disciples had Aramaic names, so did Simon PETROS. Transliterated into Greek its a homonym of petros/stone---hence the generalization error by Greek speaking Christians began as Aramaic speaking Jews vanished from the Church.

As the autographs alone are inerrant, inflection of Petros only indicates later copyists followed the mistake. When used as Peter's name, Petros is indeclinable.


END

The Aramaic PETROS "Firstborn" and Greek PETROS "Rock" are homonyms

There was, on the contrary, as already mentioned (note 12), an Aramaic name פטרוס (Petros), which perhaps is to be connected with פטר (patar) "firstborn". -PETER Disciple-Apostle-Martyr, by Oscar Cullmann, translated from the German by Floyd V. Filson (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1953), p 19, Note 14. 

"The Dead Sea Scrolls may indicate the existence of the Greek form, Petros"

"And a surprising discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the existence of the Greek form, Petros, even among Aramaic-speaking Jews some time before the dialogue at Caesarea Philippi took place. The leather fragment 4QM130, an Aramaic writing exercise in the form of several names like Aquila, Dallui, Eli, Gaddi, Hyrcanus, Jannai, Magnus, Malkiha, Mephisbosheth, Zakariel—in other words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Latin names—includes Petros, in a precise Aramaic transcription of the Greek spelling.36 It is safe to say that Jesus did not have to invent the name and its Greek form. Jews knew it and used it, even in a cross-cultural writing exercise." Thiede, C. P. (2004). The Cosmopolitan World of Jesus : New findings from Archaeology (p.69). London: SPCK.

This is disputed by Professors M. Bockmuehl and M. Abegg, but in a Dec. 2007 email Professor Charlesworth replied "the name seems quite possible."


"The currency of Peter's  name {PETROS} is confirmed"

"…The currency of Peter's name {PETROS} is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.[90] It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. A Jewish convert called Petrus also appears in a fifth-century Christian inscription from Grado in Italy.…
   90 Ilan 2002 s.v. The first of these is Petros (c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa’s mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 (v.l. Protos). The other two names are Patrin  פטרִין son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron פטרון son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nahal Hever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight different from Petros, the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in –ος  as ון- or ין- was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176).
91 E.g. y. Mo _ed Qat.. 3.6, 82d (bottom); y. _Abod. Zar. 3.1, 42c; Gen. Rab. 62.2; 92.2; 94.5 Exod. Rab. 52.3; Lev. Rab. 7.2. For additional references and discussion see Bacher 1892–99:1.128, 2:512, n. 5, and 3:598. The phenomenon of the Greek name פיטרס is also discussed by Dalman 1905:185. Cf. further Jastrow s.v.: the spelling varies from פיטרוס to פיטרס and פטרס. This in turn would account for the wide range of vocalisations encountered in the various English translations. פטרוס in t. Demai 1.11 is a place-name. -Bockmuehl, Markus. 2004. Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources. Journal of Jewish Studies 55:71-72

Its immaterial if this word is borrowed from Greek, or Hebrew PTR or somwhere else. It is clear from The NT usage of Cephas and Petros these are not equivalents and "firstborn" fits the grammar and syntax of Mat 16:18. Moreover, in Mat 10:2 the Aramaic PETROS is being translated as PRWTOS.  So Mat 16:18 is a Janus Parallelism using both Aramaic and Greek meanings, "Firstborn" looking back, "Stone" looking forward. Jesus' Aramaic likely repeated PETROS twice but Matthew realized Jesus' double entendre would be lost if he used PETROS twice, therefore He translates the second PETROS, which Christ meant as stone, as PETRA trusting the grammar will clarify Christ's meaning...He is speaking TO Simon ABOUT the rock which just gave him life, and upon which He will build His church.

Paul's usage of Cephas and Petros

"Cephas" is not the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek "Petros" as the former communicates Peter's status as a "lively stone" (1 Pet 2:5 cp 1 Cor 10:4; cf Joh 7:38). Notice the switch in Galatians
:

KJG John 1:42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
KJG 1 Corinthians 3:22  Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
KJG 1 Corinthians 9:5  Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
KJG 1 Corinthians 15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
KJG Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

KJG Galatians 1:18  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
KJG Galatians 2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
KJG Galatians 2:8  (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
KJG Galatians 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
KJG Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

The switch in Galatians is not random, its sad satire:

PETROS("Firstborn") didn't covey the stone metaphors Paul wanted for his caustic review of "those who seemed to be somewhat…seemed to be pillars", these lamps of fire guiding the people imparted no light to Paul (cp Gal 2:6,9 with Ex 13:21; cf also Berachoth 28b). Peter is both a pillar and a precious KEPA stone of grace, so Peter failed both as a pillar AND as a stone of grace. Rather than a guiding through the darkness Peter cowers in fear before followers of James, leading the people into error…even against the vision God gave Peter (Ac 10:34). Peter is thus unprofitable to those possessing him, not emitting the life giving truth of God. From his belly flows bile. Sadly, Peter is both a pillar and a kepa, yet look what he does...


Therefore PETROS and CEPHAS aren't mere translations of each other.



In Josephus we find PRWTOS as a variant of PETROS

JOE  Antiquities of the Jews 18:156 So Marsyas desired of Peter, who was the freedman of Bernice, Agrippa's mother, and by the right of her will was bequeathed to Antonia, to lend so much upon Agrippa's own bond and security;

JOS  Antiquities of the Jews 18:156 καὶ ὁ Μαρσύας Πρῶτον κελεύει Βερενίκης ὄντα ἀπελεύθερον τῆς Ἀγρίππου μητρός διαθήκης δὲ τῆς ἐκείνου δικαίῳ ὑποτελοῦντα τῆς Ἀντωνίας αὐτῷ γοῦν παρασχεῖν ἐπὶ γράμματι καὶ πίστει τῇ αὐτοῦ (Ant 18:156 JOS)

[COLOR="darkred"]If any have access to this article referred to in Ardnt, it would be appreciated you post it here, its likely relevant.
[/COLOR]
[/B]
Πέτρος, ου, ὁ (ὁ πέτρος=‘stone’ Hom.+; Jos., Bell. 3, 240, Ant. 7, 142.—Π. as a name can scarcely be pre-Christian, as AMerx, D. vier kanon. Ev. II 1, ’02, 160ff, referring to Jos., Ant. 18, 156[Niese did not accept the v.l. Πέτρος for Πρῶτος], would have it. S. on the other hand ADell [πέτρα 1b] esp. 14-17.

Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature

ADell = A. Dell, "Matthew 16, 17—19," Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft  ZNW 15 (1914)
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 01:00:44 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #90 on: August 30, 2010, 04:23:21 AM »

Advice please...how readable is this? (a writer I am not)

Is Simon πέτρος, Simon "rock" or Simon "firstborn"?

16 Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter; (Mar 3:16 NKJ) cf. Luke 6:14.

The classic exegesis answers "Simon Rock" as Mark and Luke say Jesus surnamed Simon πέτρος and this likely happened when Jesus said to Simon "Thou art Cephas" in John 1:42, which translated into Greek is πέτρος . Moreover, John's choice of the Attic πέτρος instead of the more common Koine λίθος connects this to Mat 16:18 "Thou art πέτρος" which is used instead of πέτρᾳ lest Simon be called a female name, when speaking about the Rock of the church.


42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas [κηφᾶς] " (which is translated, A Stone [πέτρος]). John 1:40-42 NKJ

"And I also say to you that you are Peter [πέτρος], and on this rock[πέτρᾳ] I will build My church, (Mat 16:18 NKJ)


The classic exegesis seems airtight, ruling out Simon "firstborn" completely. But is it?

When Jesus said Simon would be called κηφᾶς it was not a proper noun, therefore Jesus is not saying he would be called "Mr. Cephas". Years later, John translates this as a πέτρος, hence Jesus did not say he would be called "Mr. Petros" either.

"He would be called a stone"


But isn't the context about names? Didn't Jesus preface this with: "You are Simon the son of Jonah?" Then "Cephas" and "Petros" are names also. Or does it?

As both possible interpretations connect this saying to Mat 16:18, lets see if there are any clues to the meaning of "Simon the son of Jonah", whether correct exegesis requires a bit of Rabbinic Midrashic interpretation that looks for meaning in the symbols used.

In  Matthew 16:17 Jesus says "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

This is transliterated Aramaic, why? In context Simon confessed divine revelation Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That makes him like the prophet Jonah, who figuratively rose from the dead to preach God's Word (Jonah 2:2ff). AND Simon was blessed indeed as all who confess publicly the divine revelation  Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God are born again (Rom 10:8).  Add to this the fact Simon is NOT a son of Jonah, his earthly father was named "John" (John 21:15f), and we must conclude "son of Jonah" requires Midrashic interpretation, the symbols convey meaning.


"Simon [hearing, like a] son [of the prophet] Jonah.You will be called cephas[ which is, a precious lively] stone [in God's temple (cp 1 Pe 2:5) from whose belly flows living water. Jo 7:38 cp 1 Co 10:4].


Then the connection to Mat 16:18 is not "petros to petros" as though John is explaining how Simon got the name, but Greater to lesser analogy PETRA >petros/kepa, Big Rock to little stone, both emitting life giving truth albeit the smaller was born from the greater when it confessed the PETRA Truth Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.  So John sees  Simon kepa as "a chip off the old block," a "lively stone" (cp 1 Pet 2:5) in God's temple, Jesus being the cornerstone.


« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 04:25:55 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,379



« Reply #91 on: August 30, 2010, 07:39:15 AM »

Advice please...how readable is this? (a writer I am not)

Thank you, Alfred, for this effort. Quite frankly, it's the first of your posts that I have read in its entirety in quite a while. The visual impression was much improved. I didn't feel as though you were trying to blast the reader with overly-emphasized statements as has happened in some of your earlier posts. Nor did you try to bury the reader with mountains of Scripture passages that may or may not be pertinent. I found this quite readable. The tone of this post seems to point to its having been written by someone else.

Does this mean that I agree with what you've said? I've never really given this topic much thought or study. It really has never seemed that important to the working out of my own salvation. I'm sure I have my own little pet projects about which others would say exactly the same thing, so I'm not faulting you on this at all. It's just that I don't frequent that part of town  Smiley. I will leave it to others to comment on the content, with the hope that they will focus on true discussion. This is not a matter, I believe, that requires complete agreement. You are certainly aware by now that there are some issues about which we Orthodox are very passionate and unyielding.

Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #92 on: August 31, 2010, 01:57:01 PM »

Advice please...how readable is this? (a writer I am not)

Thank you, Alfred, for this effort. Quite frankly, it's the first of your posts that I have read in its entirety in quite a while. The visual impression was much improved. I didn't feel as though you were trying to blast the reader with overly-emphasized statements as has happened in some of your earlier posts. Nor did you try to bury the reader with mountains of Scripture passages that may or may not be pertinent. I found this quite readable. The tone of this post seems to point to its having been written by someone else.

Does this mean that I agree with what you've said? I've never really given this topic much thought or study. It really has never seemed that important to the working out of my own salvation. I'm sure I have my own little pet projects about which others would say exactly the same thing, so I'm not faulting you on this at all. It's just that I don't frequent that part of town  Smiley. I will leave it to others to comment on the content, with the hope that they will focus on true discussion. This is not a matter, I believe, that requires complete agreement. You are certainly aware by now that there are some issues about which we Orthodox are very passionate and unyielding.



Thanks for your insight. Writing clearly is hard work, or so the books on how to write clearly tell me.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #93 on: August 31, 2010, 05:24:32 PM »

Quote from: Alfred Persson
... Add to this the fact Simon is NOT a son of Jonah, his earthly father was named "John" (John 21:15f), and we must conclude "son of Jonah" requires Midrashic interpretation, the symbols convey meaning.

I was being lazy, the TR the best text, I do not consider the reading "son of John" in the newer Bibles better than the TR "son of Jonah".

Rather I believe the phrase is an epithet like Cephas, implicit meaning being conveyed which requires exegesis Jesus would have been familiar with, Gezerah Shawah, one of the seven rabbinic rules of exegesis. An analogy is being implied between Simon and one who is "son of, or, after the manner of the prophet Jonah."

Its always possible this is a double entendre referring to both his earthly father and Jonah, but the presence of BarJonah in Mat 16:17 proves its reference to Jonah the prophet is primary.


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #94 on: September 02, 2010, 05:27:36 PM »

Why I connect 1 Jn 1:42 with 1 Pe 2:5

KJV  1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone (LITHOS), disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
KJV  1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones(LITHOS), are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:4-5 KJV)

Its odd few connect lithos here to kepa in Jn 1:42 when 1 Cor 10:4 PETRA is LITHOS here.

NKJ  1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
[ps. Christ followed them, He is the rock; not the Rabbinic legend of moving rocks...]

Thanks to Bibleworks 8.0 we can see the connection between KEPA and LITHOS.

EVERY VERSE IN SEPTUAGINT WHERE KEPA IS TRANSLATED AS LITHOS, notice the stone is sometimes described as "precious" as in 1 Pet 2:4

NFM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
LXE  Genesis 11:3 And a man said to his neighbour, Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire. And the brick was to them for stone, and their mortar was bitumen.

FTM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
LXE  Genesis 28:11 And came to a certain place and slept there, for the sun had gone down; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it at his head, and lay down to sleep in that place,

TAM 06443 פָּנִין paniyn LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 3:15 And she is more valuable than precious stones: no evil thing shall resist her: she is well known to all that approach her, and no precious thing is equal to her in value.

TAM 06443 פָּנִין paniyn LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 8:11 For wisdom is better than precious stones; and no valuable substance is of equal worth with it.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 24:31 If thou let him alone, he will altogether remain barren and covered with weeds; and he becomes destitute, and his stone walls are broken down.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 26:8 He that binds up a stone in a sling, is like one that gives glory to a fool.


TAM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 26:27 He that digs a pit for his neighbour shall fall into it: and he that rolls a stone, rolls it upon himself.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 26:27 He that digs a pit for his neighbour shall fall into it: and he that rolls a stone, rolls it upon himself.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 27:3 A stone is heavy, and sand cumbersome; but a fool's wrath is heavier than both.

TAM 06443 פָּנִין paniyn  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 31:10 Who shall find a virtuous woman? for such a one is more valuable than precious stones.

TAM 1ST KEPA  0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
2ND KEPA 06697 צוּר tsuwr  PETRA
LXE  Isaiah 8:14 And if thou shalt trust in him, he shall be to thee for a sanctuary; and ye shall not come against him as against a stumbling-stone, neither as against the falling of a rock: but the houses of Jacob are in a snare, and the dwellers in Jerusalem in a pit.


I'm still working on this, connecting the dots...in case any were wondering.

« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 05:30:58 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #95 on: September 02, 2010, 11:55:14 PM »

6 Behold, I stand there before thou come, on the rock(petra) in Choreb, and thou shalt smite the rock(petra), and water shall come out from it, and the people shall drink. And Moses did so before the sons of Israel.(Exo 17:6 LXE)

This prefigured the risen Christ from whom flows a fountain of living water:

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them, and that Rock(petra) was Christ.  (1Co 10:4 NKJ)

Christ is the Rock who followed them, "I stand there before you", not a traveling well or rock as some suppose.

who brought thee through that great and terrible wilderness, where is the biting serpent, and scorpion, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee a fountain of water out of the flinty rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra): (Deu 8:15 LXE)


10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you,`Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."
 11 The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?
 12 "Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?"
 13 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again,
 14 "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."
 (Joh 4:10-14 NKJ)

Moses ruined the analogy to the once crucified Christ by striking the Rock twice and inserting himself into imagery:

8 Take thy rod, and call the assembly, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye to the rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra) before them, and it shall give forth its waters; and ye shall bring forth for them water out of the rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra), and give drink to the congregation and their cattle.
 9 And Moses took his rod which was before the Lord, as the Lord commanded.
 10 And Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation before the rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra), and said to them, Hear me, ye disobedient ones; must we bring you water out of this rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra)?
 11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra) with his rod twice; and much water came forth, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.
 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, Because ye have not believed me to sanctify me before the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.
 13 This is the water of Strife, because the children of Israel spoke insolently before the Lord, and he was sanctified in them. (Num 20:8-13 LXE)

In the Aramaic Versions this is KEPA Rock, in the Greek PETRA Rock:

He brought them up on the strength of the land; he fed them with the fruits of the fields; they sucked honey out of the rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra), and oil out of the solid rock(Aram. kepa; Gr. petra). (Deu 32:13 LXE)


In John 1;40-42 Jesus called Simon Petros a KEPA Rock:

42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas(kepa) " (which is translated, A Stone(petros)). (Joh 1:42 NKJ)

That Christ was applying this imagery to Peter, albeit as a smaller version of it, is clear from Peter's reapplication of this to believers:

3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
 4 Coming to Him as to a living stone(lithos), rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,
 5 you also, as living stones(lithos), are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone(lithos), elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."
 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone(lithos),"
 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
 9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
 (1Pe 2:3-9 NKJ)


"Lively stones" = "proclaim the praises of Him" = "from whose belly flows living water"

Peter's use of LITHOS rather than PETRA and John's translation of KEPA as PETROS, kept many from making the proper connection.

However, thanks to Bibleworks 8.0 we can easily compare the ancient Aramaic versions see how KEPA = LITHOS, and also see the reference to "precious" stone. The following lists every occurrence of KEPA in the Aramaic versions that is translated as LITHOS in the Greek Septuagint, numerically coded to Strong's Hebrew:

NFM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
LXE  Genesis 11:3 And a man said to his neighbour, Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire. And the brick was to them for stone, and their mortar was bitumen.

FTM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
LXE  Genesis 28:11 And came to a certain place and slept there, for the sun had gone down; and he took one of the stones of the place, and put it at his head, and lay down to sleep in that place,

TAM 06443 פָּנִין paniyn LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 3:15 And she is more valuable than precious stones: no evil thing shall resist her: she is well known to all that approach her, and no precious thing is equal to her in value.

TAM 06443 פָּנִין paniyn LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 8:11 For wisdom is better than precious stones; and no valuable substance is of equal worth with it.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 24:31 If thou let him alone, he will altogether remain barren and covered with weeds; and he becomes destitute, and his stone walls are broken down.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 26:8 He that binds up a stone in a sling, is like one that gives glory to a fool.


TAM 0068 אֶבֶן 'eben  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 26:27 He that digs a pit for his neighbour shall fall into it: and he that rolls a stone, rolls it upon himself.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 26:27 He that digs a pit for his neighbour shall fall into it: and he that rolls a stone, rolls it upon himself.

TAM 0068 אֶבֶן  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 27:3 A stone is heavy, and sand cumbersome; but a fool's wrath is heavier than both.

TAM 06443 פָּנִין paniyn  LITHOS
LXE  Proverbs 31:10 Who shall find a virtuous woman? for such a one is more valuable than precious stones.

TAM 1ST KEPA  0068 אֶבֶן 'eben LITHOS
2ND KEPA 06697 צוּר tsuwr  PETRA
LXE  Isaiah 8:14 And if thou shalt trust in him, he shall be to thee for a sanctuary; and ye shall not come against him as against a stumbling-stone, neither as against the falling of a rock: but the houses of Jacob are in a snare, and the dwellers in Jerusalem in a pit.

*Strong's numbers and transliteration
LXE English Translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton
FTM Bibleworks TargumFrags/NeofMaginalia/SheniSuppEsther Morphology
NFM Bibleworks Targum Neofiti Morphology
TAM Bibleworks Targumim (Aramaic Old Testament) Morphology


Why did John, writing years after the event, translate KEPA as PETROS and not LITHOS?

He was connecting this event to Mat 16:17ff, to KEPA/PETRA, and not PETROS as some have supposed.

The analogy John sees is Simon is the smaller KEPA/Petros born of the larger  PETRA truth he confessed in Mat 16:17. The divine revelation Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is the PETRA-TRUTH  from which flows living water to the church.

THIS is why Simon is truly blessed, having confessed the divinely revealed Gospel of Christ, he has been born again (Rom 10:5ff).

 Simon has become the PeTeR (Heb. 6363, PaTaR Aram. "Firstborn) of the divinely revealed  Gospel of Christ, hence he truly is Bar-Jonah, like Jonah, risen from the dead preaching the Word of God.

Hence Jesus responds to Simon's identifying Him as the Christ, by identifying Simon as the Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ, upon which He will build His church.

"YOU [now] are Firstborn and upon this very Rock-Truth I will build my church."

That there was in Aram. a proper name Petros (Str.-B., I, 530) which perhaps meant “firstborn” (Levy Wört., s.v., פֶּטֶר; Dalman Wört., s.v.) might have influenced the preference for Petros, but this is by no means certain.
Aram. Aramaic.
Str.-B. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff.
s.v. sub voce.
Dalman Wört. G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 1901.
s.v. sub voce.
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 11:57:20 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #96 on: September 03, 2010, 01:22:12 PM »

Son of Jonah is PARONOMASIA

Simon "Son of Jonah" either is paronomasia  double entendre referring to Simon's father (John 21:15-17) and the prophet Jonah (Mat 16:17; John 1:42) or just the latter, but not solely a reference to his earthly father.

NKJ  Matthew 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Mat 16:17 NKJ)

With the Hebrews a name was a speaking reality, even more than with the Greeks. Not only were thoughts and sentiments attached to names, but even most of the historical lore was grouped around them as landmarks and milestones. The names of persons, tribes and places were made to suggest the moral character attributed to them, or the important events connected with them.-Immanuel M. Casanowicz, PARONOMASIA IN THE OLD TESTAMENT,  (Norwood Press, Boston, Mass. 1894) p. 36 Google Books.

Transliterating Aramaic is an apostolic device meant to convey meaning:

And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, (Act 4:36 NKJ)

Matthew transliterated Bar-Jonah in Mat 16:18 to invoke the image of Jonah the prophet risen from dead preaching the Word of God, just as "Son of Man" (Mat 26:64) alludes to one "like a son of man" arriving with the clouds to be escorted to the Ancient of Days to granted a kingdom (Dan 7:13-14).

16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.(Mat 16:16-17 NKJ)

Confessing the Divine revelation Jesus is the Christ (Rom 10:5ff) results in Blessing indeed, like Jonah the prophet figuratively risen from Sheol to preach the Word of God to the Ninevites (Jonah 2:2ff; cp "sign of Jonah" Mat 16:4; Rom 6:4; Eph 2:5f), so also the PeTeR/PaTaR/PETROS "Firstborn" of the life giving PETRA Truth upon which Christ would build His church. Clearly Paul gives this event Qal wahomer application: What occurred on a small scale with Peter, happens to the entire church:

8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart " (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:8-10 NKJ)


We cannot ignore these parallels and suppose Jesus is identifying Simon's early father as Jonah or predicting the name PETROS would one day be popular. Where are examples of such mediocrity in Jesus' preaching?

NKJ  John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas " (which is translated, A Stone).
 (Joh 1:42 NKJ)

Therefore Scholars misread the connection John made to Mat 16:17ff, he is not explaining how Simon got the name Petros---which according to John 1:40 he already had.  As it is unhistorical to interpret Jesus is calling Simon "Mr. Cephas" or "Mr. Petros" in John 1:42, the connection clearly is not to first part of Mat 16:18 where Jesus does call Simon "Mr. Petros", saying "You ARE Petros" to note a fundamental change in Simon just occurred.

The connection John sees is Simon as a kepa,  "a chip off the old block," a "lively stone" (cp 1 Pet 2:5) in God's temple, Jesus being the chief cornerstone. This is a greater to lesser analogy, PETRA >petros/kepa, Big Rock to little stone, from both flow rivers of living water, life giving truth about Christ's identity, albeit the smaller cepha Simon was born from the greater cepha/PETRA when he confessed the PETRA Truth "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God" in verse 17, and therefore was born again, becoming the "First" born of the divinely revealed Son of God.


  As for "son of Jonah" in c. 21 of John, it recalls the height from whence Simon "First" had fallen, bringing to his remembrance he has a job to do for His LORD:

15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs."
 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep."
 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.
 (Joh 21:15-17 NKJ)
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #97 on: September 03, 2010, 06:57:40 PM »

re 1 Cor 15:8
 NKJ  1 Corinthians 15:8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1Co 15:8 NKJ)


http://books.google.com/books?id=ZBFeqxI7vjkC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=Erstgeborener+petros&source=bl&ots=HVczuiyagu&sig=93n_RZawTb5YRwWgdOPxnSdeSoA&hl=en&ei=QXaBTKXPLI-osQP9l5H3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Erstgeborener%20petros&f=false


Das paulinische Evangelium: Vorgeschichte, Volume 1
 By Peter Stuhlmacher

auf einen aramäischen Eigennamen Petros hinweisen; zu dessen möglicher Entstehung aus PeTeR - Erstgeborener, vgl. Cullman, ThWbVIS. 100 Anm. 8; Petrus 2 S.20. Schwingt der Unterton von,, erstgeboren in PETROS bzw. dann auch KEPHAS mit, würde dies überraschendes Licht Auf die bisher umstrittene Redeweise von Paulus als dem letzten Offenbarungsempfänger und dem ECHTRWMA in 1 Kor. 15.8 werfen.


Babylon Translation:

At a proper name ARAMAIC Petros out; to its possible emergence of PeTeR - firstborn, cf. Cullman, ThWb VI S. 100 Anm. 8; Peter 2 P. 20. shifts the undertone of" erstgeboren in PETROS bzw. then PETER, would this surprising light on the previously disputed Redeweise of Paul than the last Offenbarungsempfänger and ECHTRWMA in 1 Corinthians. 15.8 throw.



Evidently Prof Cullmann saw PETROS emerging from Strong's 6363 PeTeR, or [in his book "Peter" he points to 6362 PaTaR], and some speculate PETROS Firstborn sheds light on Paul's "Lastborn" in 1 Cor. 15:8


Just trying to pin down the precise argument for PETROS being firstborn...unfortunately I don't speak German.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 06:58:30 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #98 on: September 04, 2010, 05:28:45 AM »

Edersheim weighs in

’ But both the Greek Petros and Petra have (as already stated) passed into Rabbinic language. Thus, the name Peter, or rather Petros, is Jewish, and occurs, for example, as that of the father of a certain Rabbi (José bar Petros).d When the Lord, therefore, prophetically gave the name Cephas, it may have been that by that term He gave only a prophetic interpretation to what had been his previous name, Peter (פייטרס). This seems the more likely, since, as we have previously seen, it was the practice in Galilee to have two names,1 especially when the strictly Jewish name, such as Simon, had no equivalent among the Gentiles.2
Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The life and times of Jesus the Messiah (82). Bellingham, WA: Logos
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #99 on: September 04, 2010, 06:29:20 AM »

Another KITTEL's quote

Str.-B., III, 258. “Firstborn” can also be used in malam partem: the most dangerous or dreadful of its kind (ibid., 258 f.); cf. already Job 18:13 (Mas.): “firstborn of death” for a bad illness. Cf. also πρωτότοκος τοῦ σατανᾶ for a heretic, Pol., 7, 1; cf. Mart. Pol. epil., 3; Iren. Haer., III, 3, 4. Cf. W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit u. Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (1939), 74, 237. The Aram. proper name פֶּטְרוֹס (on the various ways of writing it cf. Str.-B., I, 530 on Mt. 10:2) may be connected with פטר and if so means the διανοίγων τὴν μήτραν → 872, 27, the firstborn. Cf. → 101, n. 8; O. Cullmann, Petrus (1952), 13 and n. 11; 14, n. 13 (ET [1953], 19, n. 11, 13); O. Betz, “Felsenmann u. Felsengemeinde,” ZNW, 48 (1957), 65, n. 48.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
PeterAV
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #100 on: November 15, 2010, 02:47:09 PM »

Thank you Alfred for all your labours of love in the word of God.
I was interested in this thread and thought to add a simple word on the topic , myself.
To start with, Peter's Body was found way back in the fifties in a tomb in Jerusalem.
Of course, this got covered up by certain dissinformationists.
*******
The Built-in Holy Bible Dictionary
on: July 15, 2006, 12:54:00 AM

--------------------
And That Rock Was Christ

Speaking of "ROCK"..Check this out that I put together a couple days ago.
Having a discussion with a Catholic about "upon this rock" Or trying to, anyway.
*******
*******
The Holy Bible's definition of "Rock" is....

Much better than man's. Much better!
That got me to thinking...
What is the Holy Bible's ultimate description of Rock, namely, the first
mention of "rock".

Exodus 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb ;and
thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come out water out of it ,that the
people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

I find it very interesting that the LORD stood before Moses upon the rock. He
shows us the very best place to stand. Upon the Rock.

The LORD is always with us. He prepares a way for us to minister to the needs
of his people.
It is not you giving to the needs of the people [water from the rock] but
Christ our rock that gives to the needs of the people through our obedience
as we stand upon him, our sure foundation and authority.

It is also very interesting that the same verse includes the term "rock"
twice. The next time "rock" is mentioned is because it gets smitten. Just like
Jesus, our Rock.

...yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.Isaiah 53:4.
Also, Moses was to be LIKE God. [Ex.4:15,16] So we have the picture of God
smiting the Rock, Jesus, in the picture of Moses smiting the rock in the
wilderness mountain of Horeb.

Of course Mt.Horeb is the meeting place of God.
To meet God we must go to the Rock that was smitten.

And then out flows the abundance of water.
Jesus said to the woman at the well..
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst; the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life.John 4:14.

Jesus is the water of life. Jesus is the Word.
The water of the word washes us clean.Eph.5:26


The Holy Bible is very clear, that the "ROCK" is none other than Jesus Christ
our Saviour.

That is pure Bible, and the words and traditions of man are making the
commandments of God of none effect.

Those that keep the commandment of God have the testimony of Jesus Christ
Rev.12:7

Those that keep the commandments of God have faith in Jesus.Rev.14:12

Only those that do his commandments, [willingly in faith,] not man's, will have right to the tree of
life and enter through the gates into the city.Rev.22:14

Wonderful words of life!
Just follow the Book.
Just believe the Book.
There is only one Holy Bible.

Peter Fuhrman

Holy Bible
There is only one.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #101 on: November 15, 2010, 03:37:59 PM »

Hmm well this is suspicious...  Roll Eyes
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #102 on: November 15, 2010, 04:15:43 PM »

Thank you Alfred for all your labours of love in the word of God.
Soooo. Alfred has made a convert.
Mat. 23:15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."
Quote
I was interested in this thread and thought to add a simple word on the topic , myself.
To start with, Peter's Body was found way back in the fifties in a tomb in Jerusalem.
Of course, this got covered up by certain dissinformationists.
The Masons?
Quote
*******
The Built-in Holy Bible Dictionary
on: July 15, 2006, 12:54:00 AM

--------------------
And That Rock Was Christ

Speaking of "ROCK"..Check this out that I put together a couple days ago.
Having a discussion with a Catholic about "upon this rock" Or trying to, anyway.
*******
*******
The Holy Bible's definition of "Rock" is....

Much better than man's. Much better!
That got me to thinking...
What is the Holy Bible's ultimate description of Rock, namely, the first
mention of "rock".

Exodus 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb ;and
thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come out water out of it ,that the
people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

I find it very interesting that the LORD stood before Moses upon the rock. He
shows us the very best place to stand. Upon the Rock.

The LORD is always with us. He prepares a way for us to minister to the needs
of his people.
It is not you giving to the needs of the people [water from the rock] but
Christ our rock that gives to the needs of the people through our obedience
as we stand upon him, our sure foundation and authority.

It is also very interesting that the same verse includes the term "rock"
twice. The next time "rock" is mentioned is because it gets smitten. Just like
Jesus, our Rock.

...yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.Isaiah 53:4.
Also, Moses was to be LIKE God. [Ex.4:15,16] So we have the picture of God
smiting the Rock, Jesus, in the picture of Moses smiting the rock in the
wilderness mountain of Horeb.

Of course Mt.Horeb is the meeting place of God.
To meet God we must go to the Rock that was smitten.

And then out flows the abundance of water.
Jesus said to the woman at the well..
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst; the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life.John 4:14.

Jesus is the water of life. Jesus is the Word.
The water of the word washes us clean.Eph.5:26


The Holy Bible is very clear, that the "ROCK" is none other than Jesus Christ
our Saviour.

That is pure Bible, and the words and traditions of man are making the
commandments of God of none effect.

Those that keep the commandment of God have the testimony of Jesus Christ
Rev.12:7

Those that keep the commandments of God have faith in Jesus.Rev.14:12

Only those that do his commandments, [willingly in faith,] not man's, will have right to the tree of
life and enter through the gates into the city.Rev.22:14

Wonderful words of life!
Just follow the Book.
Just believe the Book.
There is only one Holy Bible.

Peter Fuhrman

Holy Bible
There is only one.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Since the Orthodox Church has taught this long before you two showed up, it hardly bothers us at all.

Learn to distinguish us from the Vatican, then get back to us.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #103 on: November 15, 2010, 05:04:40 PM »

Thank you Alfred for all your labours of love in the word of God.
Soooo. Alfred has made a convert.

Although possible, I haven't ruled out the other possibility yet...
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #104 on: November 15, 2010, 05:05:12 PM »

Hmm well this is suspicious...  Roll Eyes

A bit, lol!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2010, 05:07:57 PM »

Thank you Alfred for all your labours of love in the word of God.
Soooo. Alfred has made a convert.

Although possible, I haven't ruled out the other possibility yet...
you mean, after all that effort and work Roll Eyes, and spilling of electrons, he may not have made a convert?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2010, 05:14:03 PM »

Thank you Alfred for all your labours of love in the word of God.
Soooo. Alfred has made a convert.

Although possible, I haven't ruled out the other possibility yet...
you mean, after all that effort and work Roll Eyes, and spilling of electrons, he may not have made a convert?

Perhaps it is best to err on the side of caution Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2010, 05:35:43 PM »

Thank you Alfred for all your labours of love in the word of God.
Soooo. Alfred has made a convert.

Although possible, I haven't ruled out the other possibility yet...
you mean, after all that effort and work Roll Eyes, and spilling of electrons, he may not have made a convert?

Perhaps it is best to err on the side of caution Wink
If Perssonism used caution more it would err less.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,913


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #108 on: November 15, 2010, 07:50:20 PM »

This is his profile on something called Bible Protector.com, "for pure Cambridge Edition guardians"  Roll Eyes :

http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3&sid=73bdcc1c57fb0d7dce91f292e0af72e5

Seems to be from Kamloops, B.C. If that is really him- if that is his real name.

"Final Authority: Holy Bible's Built-in Dictionary of the King James Bible

Using the Word of God to define words that are found in the in His word. Just click onto the words and it will take you to our message board where Peter defines Scripture with Scripture." And not in ways that would have been recognizable to, er, the Anglicans...

Peter's nickname on his own profile seems to be "Holy Bible."  Shocked Wow. He does not mince words there, either. We like ourselves pretty well, don't we!

This guy's forum logo is, also, an open Bible.  Roll Eyes

Where's Jeremy Brett when you need him?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 3,794



WWW
« Reply #109 on: November 17, 2010, 01:32:18 AM »

Christ is the cornerstone that the builders rejected. Isn't Jesus Christ our rock of salvation?

Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

And when Peter confessed Christ with Words that are in the Word of our Scriptures, and Christ responded on "this" rock I build my church, couldn't he have been referring to Peter's words?

Wasn't it after all, that Jesus named Peter the rock because he spoke those words?
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #110 on: November 17, 2010, 02:02:04 AM »

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:16

Question is...what Rock? Peter who died (and thus allowed the Church to die with him...?) or another sturdier foundation? Of course the foundation is given to us:

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
-Matthew 16:18

THAT is the Rock. God revealed it to Peter and he cannot contradict himself. The Rock is given to us previously in scripture:


My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
         My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge;
         My savior, You save me from violence.

- 2 Samuel 22:3

Build your Church on a strong foundation- Christ not Peter. And of course the Keys of heaven are in the Apostolic church, not fake churches without sacraments,the priesthood and the office of a Bishop.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 02:04:00 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #111 on: November 17, 2010, 05:15:10 PM »

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:16

Question is...what Rock? Peter who died (and thus allowed the Church to die with him...?) or another sturdier foundation? Of course the foundation is given to us:

Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
-Matthew 16:18

THAT is the Rock. God revealed it to Peter and he cannot contradict himself. The Rock is given to us previously in scripture:


My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
         My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge;
         My savior, You save me from violence.

- 2 Samuel 22:3

Build your Church on a strong foundation- Christ not Peter. And of course the Keys of heaven are in the Apostolic church, not fake churches without sacraments,the priesthood and the office of a Bishop.
So now you believe that the Catholic Church is a fake Church with no sacraments?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #112 on: November 17, 2010, 05:28:02 PM »

I donot believe the RCC is a "fake church with no sacraments" personally. But...Well make up your mind- is the Church built on Peter or Christ ? Please say Christ and stick to it consistently since everybody is worried about Rome changing what the definition of a Bishop is. The ROC for instance says the RCC has valid sacraments but it privately doe not accept the institution of the papacy in any form. The ACOE also says that the Church is built on Christ not Peter who died and that changing the definition of a Bishop can even lead to invalid sacraments (this is noted for protestants...it can eerily be noted for the RCC as well). The concept of "Petrine primacy" or a "first among equals" was never taught in the East. I have to say...Father Ambrose is right when he says the office of the papacy is as foreign to the Apostolic teachings as the female episcopacy.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #113 on: November 17, 2010, 09:27:38 PM »

I donot believe the RCC is a "fake church with no sacraments" personally. But...Well make up your mind- is the Church built on Peter or Christ ? Please say Christ and stick to it consistently since everybody is worried about Rome changing what the definition of a Bishop is. The ROC for instance says the RCC has valid sacraments but it privately doe not accept the institution of the papacy in any form. The ACOE also says that the Church is built on Christ not Peter who died and that changing the definition of a Bishop can even lead to invalid sacraments (this is noted for protestants...it can eerily be noted for the RCC as well). The concept of "Petrine primacy" or a "first among equals" was never taught in the East. I have to say...Father Ambrose is right when he says the office of the papacy is as foreign to the Apostolic teachings as the female episcopacy.
Of Course the Church was built on Christ. What is your point?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags: Petrine Primacy Perssonism 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.607 seconds with 140 queries.