DEFENDING THE FAITH: BIBLE AND CHURCH AUTHORITY, Lion's Training Ground Part 3-4

Sts. Peter and Paul, mosaic

Subject: DEFENDING THE FAITH! I JUST LOVE IT!!!!! PART 3

*Kristina- (This entire wall of text is copy/pasted from a thesis by Pastor Stark)*

"The Church of Rome says that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18, underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word KE'PHA' both as the proper name given to Simon bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, that therefore Peter (Aramaic, Ke'pha') is the rock and the foundation of the Church. Rome bases many of its claims of papal supremacy on this identification of the Apostle Peter with the Rock mentioned by Christ in this passage of Matthew's Gospel. If the defenders of Rome are wrong at this point then their argument that Peter is the Rock fails.

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

2. The Greek text of Matthew 16:18 uses two separate (different) Greek words in the passage.

Petros, the name given to the Apostle

Petra, the word used for rock

Rome says that "Peter" (PETROS) is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun PETRA, and therefore means the same thing. But...

3. Classic Greek authors (before the New Testament was written) treat the words PETROS and PETRA as two different words.

According to Liddell and Scott:

Petros, ...(distinct from petra)...

Hom. IL. 16.734; 7:270; 20.288

E. Heracl.1002, "panta kinesai petron" ..."Leave no stone unturned"

cf. Pl. Lg. 843a

X. HG 3.5.20 "Petrous epekulindoun" "They rolled down stones."

S. Ph 296 to produce fire "en petroisi petron ektribon"

Id. OC 1595 of a boulder forming a landmark

[the usual prose word is lithos]"

from: A Greek - English Lexicon, complied by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, pg. 1397- 8, Pub. by Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.)

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

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

The word "Petros" is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon bar Jona.

Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

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

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

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

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

But what of the Greek word Petra? Is it correctly translated as Ke'pha'?

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

Greek: Petra = Aramaic: ?

8. In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.

PETRA is used 16 times in the Greek New Testament:

Of those times it is translated in the Peshitta Syriac

9 times by the word SHU`A' ,

6 times by the word KE'PHA' and

1 time by the Hebrew root word 'ABENA'

Of the ten times PETRA is used in the Gospels it is translated:

7 times by the word SHU`A'

(Mt.7:24, 25; Mk.15:46; Lk 6:48[2x];8:6, 13)

3 times by the word KE'PHA'

(Mt.16:18; 27:51; 27:60)

Of the three times KE'PHA' is used to translate PETRA in the Gospels:

[1] in Mt. 27:60 the parallel passage in Mark's gospel (Mark 15:46) more correctly uses SHU`A' to translate PETRA.

[2] in Mt. 27:51 the word KE'PHA' is used to describe the rocks (plural) which were broken at the earthquake when Christ died (and hence, these rocks became movable)

[3] the other passage is Mt. 16:18 where KE'PHA' is used to translate both PETROS and PETRA.

In all other places in the Gospels the Greek word PETRA is translated by the Syriac word SHU`A', meaning "a massive rock."

KE'PHA' is used in the Syriac N.T. as the translation of both the Greek words LITHOS and PETROS.

The Greek word LITHOS, which means "a stone" (generally of a size which could be picked up or moved) is ALWAYS translated by the Syriac word KE'PHA'.

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

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.

SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.

KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.

SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

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

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

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

Conclusion

a. A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:

"You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:

"You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

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

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

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

*Me- (thanks Sean for the assistance with research)*

"Considering you just copied and pasted Pastor Stark's thesis. I assume you do not really know the material.

Stark makes the mistake assuming Petros and Petra are different due to the change in gender. What he does wrong is believe that the two words in the verse differ due to meaning. The words are different due to grammar. In Koine Greek, the language Matthew is written in, both Petros and Petra mean "rock". They do not have different meanings.

His mistake with Kepha and Shua is that he also assumes they have different meanings. Stark has no problems saying that Kepha and Peter are the same, but he believes that Petra and Kepha are different. He makes this conclusion based on Shua being used in place of Petra. However, he is wrong because the Peshitta NT uses Kepha twice in Matthew 16:18. To fix that error, he just states that the translation must be wrong because he believes Shua should be there instead. However, both Kepha and Shua mean "rock" and thus can be used interchangeably with Petro and petra based on grammatical rules.

In terms of gender. Petros is the masculine form of petra. Gender does not change the meaning. Only thing that changes is the grammatical usage. When jesus says petra and petros, he uses the masculine term for petra in reference to Peter and then uses the feminine term for the metaphor."

Subject: DEFENDING THE FAITH! I JUST LOVE IT!!!!! PART 4

AND HERE IS WHEN SEAN HUTTON COMES IN!!!! AND ITS REALLY POWERFUL...TO BE A CATHOLIC, THAT KNOWS SCRIPTURE, THESE DAYS!!!! ENJOY!!!!!

*Kristina-*

"Yes I copied and pasted because I was in a hurry. But I did study Greek at Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, MI and got a theology minor from said college. It is Catholic. I learned about Catholicism while I was there and since I started out in the bible when I first came to Christ at age 16( I was baptized when I was 17), I could not accept the Catholic Doctrine. Because you guys build doctrines on one verse out of the scripture and let a man teach infallible doctrine when the same man kissed the Quran!!!! If he starts teaching Unitarianism, all religions lead to God, or something along that nature will you still blindly follow him? Jesus set up a system with twelve Apostles and discipleship. I did not see him appoint one man as head, because Christ is the head. And even if you say that scripture about Peter being the rock is about just that, let's say that is true for a second. Even if that were true, that would be giving Peter the place of God because the scripture says God is our Rock. Second the scripture doesn't mention anything about Peter's successors. If that was true you still could not justify the papal system because no successor is mentioned. Also doesn't Jesus in the next few verses then call Peter Satan? Interesting huh? The Catholic Church is like the pharisees so caught up in dead religion. You probably would throw the real Jesus out of your churches if you ever met him. You are so caught up in rituals that when someone presents who Jesus really was and offers to teach you how to have a personal relationship with him, you would scoff them. Catholicism is dangerous because it is a bit of truth mixed in with lies."

*Paul- (he took part in the discussion earlier, but went off topic a bit due to language barriers with Greek and Aramaic)*

"The pope cannot teach unitarianism, while in the Seat of Peter, because the pope is infallible. A negative charism, the Holy Spirit does not allow the pope to preach errancy.

It does not give Peter the place of God. Scripture also says that God is our Father. does that mean we cannot call anybody else a father? The meanings are different. The twelve apostles were the first bishops. In Acts there is a discussion about how to fill the office of the now deceased Judas. This demonstrates that there was a system of succession even before the Jerusalem Council.

Yes, Jesus says, "Get behind be Satan" while speaking to Peter. Are you telling us that Jesus actually believed Peter was Satan right after He gave him the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven? Or was He merely rebuking what Peter had just said to make explicitly clear that the Son of Man must suffer and die?"

*Me- (now i spent most of the day arguing with this individual so I was not happy with her rebuttal)*

"I finished my freshman year at Aquinas. So this is a coincidence that has shocked me.

You have failed to address the points that I have made! Answer them instead of attacking as many thing as possible. So far, all your topics have been challenged and you have dropped them. You say we are teaching Unitarianism? Where? The Church has never stated that all religions lead to heaven. JP II has never stated that the Muslim religion is right or deserving of any special status. JP II was a pope more interested in apologizing for the Church when he never needed to. Regardless, how about actually defending what you believe instead of running away and attacking with harsh statements that have no backing other than opinion."

*Sean- (after a moment of silence, he burst onto the discussion board upon digital wings of fire and bellowed like a might debating beast)*

"Kristina,

Copying and pasting a massive attack while you are in a hurry, and then failing to deal with the rebuttal of said massive attack, is extremely disingenuous to Andrew Simmon, who took a large amount of time analyzing the argument you presented, that I doubt you even READ from start to finish, and gave you a thought-out response.

All you had to give him was a rebuttal attacking Catholicism on every possible front one can imagine. I call it the "Catholicism-on-trial" approach, and it is particularly employed by fundamentalist Protestants. The whole idea is to keep hitting Catholics with every charge in the book and keep them on the defensive, not even bothering to deal with their explanations and their rebuttals. It's extremely immature, uncharitable, and what it ultimately shows is that you don't stand a chance of holding your own against us in a real point-for-point debate.

Scripture also says Abraham is our rock - read Isaiah 51. You fallaciously go with the false dichotomy of thinking that since the metaphor of "the rock" is applied to God/Christ in Scripture, it CANNOT be applied to anyone else. You wouldn't do that with Christ's role of shepherd, or the light, or a lamb, would you? It's clear to anyone that has SERIOUSLY studied these matters that metaphors can be applied to people other than Christ, who are in Christ, because the union between Christ and Christians is so close as to effect an actual sharing of properties. Christ even takes the traditional metaphor for Israel, the Vine, and applies it to Himself, the groom, to emphasize the unity between Him and His Church. To insist as you do that the rock metaphor CAN'T apply to anyone other than Christ is simply foolhardy.

Please respond if you gather together the intellectual fortitude to actually deal openly, honestly and fairly with your opponents and their arguments. Modern Catholics are not going to fall for the old Protestant polemical arguments with their straw man fallacies and unfair generalizations and point-dodging anymore. Your days are numbered. And so is your nominalism-born soteriology."