OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 05:59:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   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 10314 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« 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
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: 37,365



« 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

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« 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
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,058


« 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: 6,377


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

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« 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
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: 3,058


« 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: 3,058


« 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: 3,058


« 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« 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: 2,346


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: 2,346


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: 3,058


« 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
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: 37,365



« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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
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: 37,365



« 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
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: 37,365



« 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)
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 0.264 seconds with 71 queries.