Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Primacy of Peter
Where Is That In The Bible | Patrick Madrid

Posted on 07/10/2005 5:27:58 AM PDT by NYer

Among Catholic doctrines, those pertaining to the papacy tend to be the most misunderstood and contested by non-catholics. The following verses show the biblical basis for Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter, the office of the papacy being established by Christ and allusions to the doctrine of infallibility. These doctrines reached their full development in the life of the Church only after centuries of contemplation and study, in councils and through the actions of the popes. And we should never forget that since the Church is likened by Christ to a “mustart seed” that grows and develops organically from a speck into a large treelike plant, therefore we should not expect to see the Church’s doctrines fully developed and visible in its present form in the pages of the New Testament. What we do find in the New Testament though, is the scriptural record of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles and the seminal outlines of the doctrines pertaining to the papacy.

The Primacy of Peter

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.

When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).

Other Citations

It is from Simon Peter’s fishing boat (cf. Luke 5:3) that Christ preaches to the crowds (this is significant in light of the fact that, since very early times, the Catholic Church has been widely referred to in patristic writings and religious art as the “barque” [archaic English for “boat”] of Peter. In these episodes, Peter plays a central role in the drama as usual).

In Mark 16:7 we see that the angels single Peter out among the Apostles when they tell the Holy Women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” about the Lord’s Resurrection.

In Luke 24:33-35 we see that the risen Christ appears to Simon Peter first, before appearing to the other Apostles.

In Acts 1:15-26 it is Peter who leads the Apostles in selecting a replacement for Judas.

In Acts 3:1-9, we see St. Peter leading the infant Christian Church forward through difficult moments after the Resurrection. He is clearly the chief of the Apostles as he preaches in Acts 2 the first post-Pentecost sermon to the crowds, performs in Acts 3 the first post-Pentecost miracle and in Acts 4, with John,m turns the tables on the Jewish Sanhedrin by putting them on trial in the very setting where they intended to intimidate the Apostles.

In Acts 10, Simon Peter receives a special revelation from God that Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church without having to follow Jewish Kosher food restrictiions or undergo circumcision. In Acts 11, he acts in the name of the Church in welcoming the first Gentile converts to be received according to this new revelation.

In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter delivers the revelation pertaining to Gentile believers that causes the disputes to cease and the room to fall silent (cf. Acts 6-12). St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, appears in a position of leadership alongside Peter. While James delivers the pastoral, disciplinary teaching (cf. Acts 13-21), it was Peter who delivered the binding doctrinal teaching. His primacy was recognized by St. Paul (who in Antioch “withstood Peter to his face” over the vexing issue of his refraining to eat with Gentiles) when he describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; holyfather; patrickmadrid; peter; pope; primacy; theholyfather; thepope; theprimacyofpeter; vatican; vicar; vicarofchrist; vicarofchristonearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last
For the ..... "rest of the story" .... you will have to purchase Patrick Madrid's book Where's That In The Bible.
1 posted on 07/10/2005 5:27:58 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

For those who constantly raise this question :-)


2 posted on 07/10/2005 5:29:48 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Great thread NYer! Thanks!


3 posted on 07/10/2005 5:58:31 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

With this kind of information readily available in scripture,it is truly bewildering that so many non-Catholics and self identified catholics on both ends of the spectrum will argue against the Church's position on Peter and his Primacy.


4 posted on 07/10/2005 9:02:17 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I love that book! I have the other two, also. Can't remember the names right now and am too tired to look them up. They are equally as wonderful and concise as that one.


5 posted on 07/10/2005 8:36:48 PM PDT by samiam1972 (Live simply so that others may simply live!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Bump! Think you may enjoy this.


6 posted on 07/11/2005 7:29:39 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Your thoughts?


7 posted on 07/11/2005 7:30:15 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Mrs. Don-o

Thanks, NYer! This is great. When I get a minute (busy day) I'm going to re-read it more carefull and memorize his main points for future FRemedial Catechism lessons... :->


8 posted on 07/11/2005 8:02:24 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Gee, I was watching the local Calvary Chapel preacher on cable a few weeks ago when he hit Matthew 16 and the keys to the kingdom. He certainly had a novel approach.

He didn't spend a lot of time on it considering the gravity of what he was proposing for belief.


9 posted on 07/11/2005 9:30:04 AM PDT by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"Your thoughts?"

I think I've seen much better arguments than this! I will say that the appropriate canonical position of the Pope is that of first in honor, the primus inter pares not simply the "primus". When a Pope is elected who teaches the The Faith in all its fullness as preserved in the Orthodox Church and lived out by the People of God, then the proper canonical order will be restored...but not before that.


10 posted on 07/11/2005 9:36:09 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
He certainly had a novel approach.

Do you recall any of what he said?

11 posted on 07/11/2005 9:46:18 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
I think I've seen much better arguments than this!

What were they?

12 posted on 07/11/2005 10:10:19 AM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Do you recall any of what he said?

The keys are the words of Sacred Scripture and the words Jesus said to Peter apply to every ordained minister.

13 posted on 07/11/2005 10:16:36 AM PDT by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

Interesting intrepretation.

I believe Mr. Madrid would return to (sorry I am Catholic and cannot quote by chapter and verse) the section where "you" is used in addressing Peter and is thus thought of as individual investiture.

If I recall correctly, isn't there a second investiture after Peter when the remaining Apostles are invested?

Perhaps he focuses on the second more that the first....or perhaps very simply he has a translation that doesn't include the same wording.

In the spirit of respect for other religions I must confess that were each Christian to consider themselves corporate in the works of the "Church" (as used by Touchstone Magazine to refer to every Christian regardless of degree of Communion) the same as this minister seems to, perhaps Ut Unam Sint wouldn't be so far off.

Or at the very least there would be more amicable ecumenical relations.


14 posted on 07/11/2005 10:44:09 AM PDT by Cheverus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cheverus
If I recall correctly, isn't there a second investiture after Peter when the remaining Apostles are invested?

Mt. 18:18?

Perhaps he focuses on the second more that the first....

Nope. He was reading Mt. 16:19. The keys to the kingdom.

15 posted on 07/11/2005 11:42:25 AM PDT by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer; gbcdoj

"I think I've seen much better arguments than this!

What were they?"

In my opinion, gbcdoj is the "go to" guy on this subject. I'll leave the defense of the Latin's idea of the role of the Papacy to him! :)


16 posted on 07/11/2005 12:14:13 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Taking this discussion out one more step. Is there a similar such article which refers to tradition?

Since Catholic do take the both/and approach (yes I poached that from Grodi), any discussion would seem to merit the additional points from tradition.


17 posted on 07/11/2005 12:23:41 PM PDT by Cheverus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheverus
Is there a similar such article which refers to tradition?

Yes .... the topic includes Tradition. The book, however, is at home. I'll have to look it up this evening. ;-D

18 posted on 07/11/2005 1:01:56 PM PDT by NYer ("Each person is meant to exist. Each person is God's own idea." - Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cheverus

There *are* indeed to separate investitures, one to Peter singularly, and the other to the apostles collectively: An ecumenical council's unanimous decrees are also considered infallible. But they have to represent the *collective* faiths of the all of the bishops (the heirs of apostolic authority), for no two people can have divergent views and be infallible!


19 posted on 07/11/2005 2:23:27 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The best arguments I've seen for the primacy and infallibility of St. Peter and his successors are the following series of articles from Dom John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy:

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy
St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See
St. John Chrysostom and the Apostle Peter
St. Jerome and Rome
The Condemnation of Pelagianism Part I
The Condemnation of Pelagianism Part II

These really sum up quite well the evidence from the early Church, and the article on St. John Chrysostom also treats of the Scriptural evidence through his interpretive grid. Well worth reading.

20 posted on 07/11/2005 2:24:21 PM PDT by gbcdoj (Without His assisting grace, the law is “the letter which killeth;” - Augustine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Even better here:

Jesus, Peter & the keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy

It is 431 pages long. There are no doubts after reading this and the bible together.

21 posted on 07/11/2005 6:44:56 PM PDT by ImaGraftedBranch (Imagine 40,000,000 dead babies in a pile reaching to the sky. Think God hasn't noticed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; NYer
I think I've seen better arguments than this!

Of course you have,this was just frosting on the cake. The ingredients,directly from scripture,that comprise the cake are:

Mt.16:15-19; 1Cor.15:3-5; Gal.1:18; Is.61:1-2; Is.22:15-25;Rev.3:7;Acts 2:14-36; Lk.22:31-32;Acts 15; Mt.10:2-4;Acts 12:5; Jn. 21:15-17; Mt.17:24-27; Mt.14:28-31; Mk.16:7; Acts 4:8-12; Acts 5:3-11; Acts5:15; Acts8:9-25; Acts 9:32-35.

I hope after reading these passages you will understand how inconceivable it is for an informed Roman Catholic to understand how any non-Roman Catholic can argue Christ's intention to establish a visible Church with a visible leader.

22 posted on 07/11/2005 10:42:06 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: saradippity; NYer
"I hope after reading these passages you will understand how inconceivable it is for an informed Roman Catholic to understand how any non-Roman Catholic can argue Christ's intention to establish a visible Church with a visible leader."

I can't speak for other non-Roman Catholics but I think I'm on safe ground saying that Orthodoxy would agree that Christ did establish a Church with a visible leader. +Ignatius of Antioch, in the 1st century or very very early in the second, wrote that The Catholic Church was to be found in its fullness in a diocese composed of a bishop surrounded by his clergy and people. Orthodoxy further teaches, as I said before, that the Bishop of Rome's appropriate canonical position in The Church as established by the councils is the primus inter pares among the bishops. If the Pope however isn't teaching the Catholic Faith as handed down to us by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, he cannot be the primus inter pares of The Church. Four of the five Patriarchates of The Church as it existed before the Great Schism determined that the Pope of Rome had broken with them and fallen into, as some then put it, heresy. Since that time we have been in schism and while Rome over the centuries has created "Patriarchates" in lands under the canonical jurisdiction of the Orthodox Patriarchates, Orthodoxy has not presumed to create a counter Papacy and Patriarchate for the West.

Here's the bottom line, S. If Rome honestly wants reunion with the Orthodox East, among other things the Papacy will have to be changed; No more universal jurisdiction, no more "ex cathedra" infallibility, no more teaching that unless one "submits" to the Pope of Rome, no salvation. Any union based on something less than this will be as false and as rejected by the Laos tou Theou as the False Union of Florence. In Orthodoxy, S, without the "Axios" of the whole Church, the laity included, things just won't change, even if the hierarchs wanted it to. I think that +Benedict XVI knows this; he's way too smart and way to patristic not to.

Your comments, and those of others relative to the theoretical role of the Papacy within The Church causes us great confusion. You see, S, we really to look at The Church like +Ignatius of Antioch and we view the consensus patrum as being in accord with that mindset, what we call "phronema".When we look at the Latin Church, we see an absolutely top down system which looks for all the world like the feudal system the Franks set up in the early Middle Ages, with the bishops being the vassals of a monarchical pope and the people as the serfs destined to pay, pray and obey. Although there have been Fathers, East and West, who seem to have viewed The Church just that way in one writing or another, because we don't attribute infallibility to any given Father, we feel they were in error. In any event, we do not believe that a Frankish feudal system is what Christ intended for His Church. In Orthodoxy, the relationship among the hierarchy, the monastics, the clergy and the people is called "sydeesmos" which sort of means "partnership", with each part of The Church fulfilling its appropriate role. It is not at all anything like democracy.

It is precisely this difference in phronema between the East and the West which, it seems to me, will prevent any early union between the East and the West, though I suspect that there will continue to be de facto, and in some cases perhaps even de jure, unions between the Orthodox Churches and certain particular Eastern Churches in communion with the Latin Church. The mindset of the Latin Church, from the hierarchy on down, is just far too different from that of the other Patriarchal Churches to make union possible without some sort of major change in that Church...and it will have to be in the Latin Church since that's the only Church where the hierarchy can make those changes without canonical regard for what the clergy and laity think.
23 posted on 07/12/2005 7:51:31 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Thanks for responding,after I posted I thought that what I said might be taken in a manner that I did not intend to convey. Nonetheless, I thought it important that you know that Roman Catholics had far more scriptural cites than were mentioned in the article, which,I noticed you did imply your earlier response. I will get back later because I think it is important in view of where we are today with regards the "mission" Christ gave to His Church.
24 posted on 07/12/2005 9:54:09 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Actually, this is easily refuted in Scripture.

Here is a copy and paste on Peter that explains how just a reading of the Bible explains that, it is from a post of mine a while back and I decided to save it because it saves me typing time each time this subject comes up :)

What is important to remember in what follows, is the question: Do you read the Bible in the light of the doctrine you were taught; or; do you read the Bible and THEN decide on what your doctrine is? Too many people hear something about the Bible, ABOUT what it says, ABOUT what it means, and they never, ever critically ever read what some passage was supposed to be teaching in the first place.

Here is my copy and paste:


Each time the word ROCK is used in the Bible in reference to any providing of the people, it is used as God being the one provided. Here is the first verse in the Bible in the KJV showing just that.

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

Who pointed out where the ROCK was? God did. What came out of the ROCK? Water, water to drink. Who is referred to as LIVING WATER, water that must be drunk to live eternally? Jesus.

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

Each time the word ROCK is used, where God provides the ROCK, it is either a literal ROCK, like just above, where WATER came out of, water to allow the Isralites to live, it came from GOD, not a man.

When it refers to a spiritual meaning, the word ROCK is used to describe God as creator or Saviour! IT IS NEVER USED TO DESCRIBE A MAN!

(Deu 32:1 KJV) Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.

(Deu 32:2 KJV) My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

(Deu 32:3 KJV) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

(Deu 32:4 KJV) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Who is the ROCK? God is, He is our support, our Saviour, our Creator.NOT A MAN.

(Deu 32:18 KJV) Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

GOD is the ROCK, the Creator, not a man.

(Deu 32:30 KJV) How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?

(Deu 32:31 KJV) For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

Who is the ROCK? It is GOD, not a man!

(1 Sam 2:2 KJV) There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

Who is the ROCK? It is not a man, it is GOD!

(2 Sam 22:2 KJV) And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

(2 Sam 22:3 KJV) The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Who is the ROCK? It is GOD. NOT a sinful man who denied his God, but GOD Himself.

Peter is NO ONE'S shield.
Peter is NO ONE'S high tower.
Peter is NO ONE'S refuge.
and Peter is NO ONE'S Saviour! To say anything like those statements are true of a sinful man is blasphemy.

Most Catholics never read the section before or after this part:

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


That is one reason some people do not find it obvious.

Here is what it says::

(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

(Mat 16:17 KJV) 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.


What was the original topic of discussion?

(Mat 16:13 KJV) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Jesus asked,

That was the topic of discussion.

What was the response?

(Mat 16:14 KJV) And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

They were all over the place, it seems that there was not many who were catching on to exactly who Jesus was.

So, what was the next sentence?

(Mat 16:15 KJV) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16 KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Jesus asked the disciples themselves what THEY thought, not just one disciple, but ALL of them.

Peter gave the best answer, that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Right from there, many people ignore what was just said, and only concentrate on what comes next.

However, that is where the error lies, in ignoring what was just said.

It is like explaining to someone that people put sodas in the soda machine first, then act surprised when soda comes out of the machine when you put money into it. People forget what happened first: someone loaded the machine.

In the same respect, Jesus set the tone for the conversation: WHO IS HE?

Peter had it right: Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That was the point of what Jesus was saying. That He was the Christ.

That was what He just said!

We all know what comes next, and it is because people ignore what was just said, that they get this part wrong:The Context of the ongoing conversation is important:

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

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus explains that Peter's revelation did not come from His logic, it came from God the Father Himself. This type of instruction was done on a spiritual level, not fleshly, it was something that Peter would have never figured out for himself.

What did Jesus say next? Peter is blessed because he was BLESSED with this information.

What information?

That Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is the point.

What Jesus said next is the most misused verse in the entire New Testament.

(Mat 16:18 KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter and Rock. Is Peter the rock spoken of here, or is the IMPORTANT POINT THAT GOD REVEALED TO PETER the rock?

17 And [ 2532] Jesus [2424] answered [ 611] (5679) and said [ 2036] (5627) unto him [846], Blessed [ 3107] art thou [ 1488] (5748), Simon [ 4613] Barjona [ 920]: for [ 3754] flesh [ 4561] and [ 2532] blood [ 129] hath [ 601] [0] not [3756] revealed [601] (5656) it unto thee [4671], but [ 235] my [ 3450] Father [ 3962] which [ 3588] is in [ 1722] heaven [ 3772].

18 And [ 1161] I say [ 3004] (5719) also [ 2504] unto thee [ 4671], That [ 3754] thou [ 4771] art [ 1488] (5748) Peter [ 4074], and [ 2532] upon [ 1909] this [ 5026] rock [ 4073] I will build [ 3618] (5692) my [ 3450] church [ 1577]; and [ 2532] the gates [ 4439] of hell [ 86] shall [ 2729] [0] not [ 3756] prevail against [ 2729] (5692) it [ 846].


18 kagw [ 2504] de [ 1161] soi [ 4671] legw [ 3004] (5719) oti [ 3754] su [ 4771] ei [ 1488] (5748) petroj [ 4074] kai [ 2532] epi [ 1909] tauth [ 3778] th [ 3588] petra [ 4073] oikodomhsw [ 3618] (5692) mou [ 3450] thn [ 3588] ekklhsian [ 1577] kai [ 2532] pulai [ 4439] adou [ 86] ou [ 3756] katiscusousin [ 2729] (5692) authj [ 846]

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



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



Due to what Jesus was talking about, the ROCK had to be the truth Peter had revealed to him from God the Father, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.

There is no other sensible explanation of the verse unless it is twisted to make someone believe what is not there in the text.
Because of all the previous uses of the word ROCK to describe the attributes of God as Creator, Deliverer, Saviour, to ascribe those attributes to a man, that is a total misunderstanding of Scripture.


Too many people form what they believe around their doctrine, and then interpret the Bible in the light of that doctrine.

That is wrong. Doctrine should come from what the Bible clearly says, and then base their doctrine on what it clearly says!

The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.

Jesus is also called the ROCK or CORNER STONE in many other verses, but PETER IS NOT!

Notice what is said in this passage::

(Mat 7:24 KJV) 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:

(Mat 7:25 KJV) 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.

(Mat 7:26 KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

(Mat 7:27 KJV) And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.



What is it that a person built their house upon and survived? A ROCK.

If a person is foolish, what does a person build their house upon? SAND. What did Jesus say that those who rejected his words built upon? SAND.

If the foolish reject Jesus and build upon SAND, then those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE what Jesus said, which of the two men is Jesus comparing them to, the SAND builder or the ROCK builder?

It is CLEAR that Jesus is referring to those who BELIEVE on HIM and trust HIM as one who builds their house UPON A ROCK.

That is JESUS own words several chapters before Peter's declaration.

This is repeated in more detail in Luke::
(Luke 6:47 KJV) Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:

(Luke 6:48 KJV) He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

(Luke 6:49 KJV) But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Note again, the PERSON who believes on the WORD OF GOD, is likened to someone building their house UPON A ROCK.

So, what does the reference to A ROCK in ALL these cases refer to?

Is it a MAN or is it the WORD OF GOD revealed?

This is not difficult to read, but too many people have been taught to interpret the passage in Matthew in such a way to twist what is actually being said, and these alternate passages repeat the same basic message: THAT GOD is what matters, not men or a single man.

Paul wrote in Romans 9::
(Rom 9:33 KJV) As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Who is Paul speaking of when he SAYS A ROCK of offense? A Stumbling stone? It is Jesus, and refers to those who refuse to believe.

(1 Cor 10:4 KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Who is the ROCK?
It plainly says the ROCK WAS JESUS, not Peter.


There is no other place where Peter is praised or given any authority, in fact Peter is rebuked for his actions by other persons.

(Gal 2:11 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

(Gal 2:12 KJV) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

(Gal 2:13 KJV) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

(Gal 2:14 KJV) 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?

If PETER is the ROCK of the Church, then WHO IS PAUL to REBUKE PETER?

Paul clearly rebuked Peter in this passage because PETER was WRONG and at FAULT!

The ROCK of the Church CANNOT HAVE ANY FAULT, or else there is NO FOUNDATION to stand upon but error!!

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, also. While the book of Acts clearly tells Peter to witness to a Gentile first, Peter is NOWHERE granted any position or title that PETER is the Apostle to the Gentiles, but PAUL clearly IS named as SUCH!

(Rom 15:15 KJV) Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,

(Rom 15:16 KJV) That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Galatians is the clearest refutation to many false doctrines concerning this::

(Gal 2:1 KJV) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

(Gal 2:2 KJV) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.


Now, read the next passage carefully:: WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY??

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION WAS GIVEN TO PAUL, NOT PETER.

PETER WAS TO BE THE APOSTLE TO THE JEWS.

(Eph 3:1 KJV) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

WHO WAS? PAUL was, not Peter.

(Eph 3:8 KJV) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

WHO WAS?? Paul was!!

(1 Tim 2:7 KJV) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

WHO IS A TEACHER OF THE GENTILES?

Paul is! NOT Peter, every time Peter is mentioned as to WHAT PEOPLE Peter is to be associated with it is the JEWS, WITH ONLY ONE EXCEPTION, and that is Acts chapter 10.

Only ONCE, while PAUL is repeatedly and openly called or referred to as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

In fact, there might even be more references to PAUL witnessing to Jews then there are references to PETER witnessing to Gentiles! And this from the man who is KNOWN as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES!

(Acts 9:19 KJV) And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
(Acts 9:20 KJV) And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
(Acts 9:21 KJV) But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
(Acts 9:22 KJV) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Acts 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

(Acts 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

(Acts 18:5 KJV) And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.


(2 Tim 1:11 KJV) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

(2 Tim 4:17 KJV) Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Strengthened who? PETER?? NO!
Paul!

The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.

That cannot be denied by anyone who knows how to read for themselves.

(Acts 17:10 KJV) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

(Acts 17:11 KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

(Acts 17:12 KJV) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.



"Jesus spoke Aramaic"

We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke, only evidence of what language the Bible was written in, and I have yet to find a definite source declaring that Matthew was written in Aramaic. I don't doubt it, but I have been trying to find an Aramaic/English Interlinear on-line and cant. If you know of one, please ping me.

I personally believe Jesus spoke Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of the Jews, their formal language and also their common language, regardless of how common Aramaic was in that time period.

Neither did Jesus rename Peter, he clearly called Peter a stone. To believe otherwise means you believe Jesus changed the subject of His being the Messiah. Jesus entire passage was n the Church, His founding of it being the Messiah, and the fact that HIS church would have no end.

It had NOTHING to do with a sinful man being any sort of a foundation. The only foundation for the Church was Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jesus clearly says HE is the rock that the man built his house upon, not Peter.

What did Paul say about building upon a MAN'S foundational work?

(Rom 15:20 KJV) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul said he would NOT go anywhere another man had alreayd preached. Since we KNOW Peter was in Rome after Paul, and they may have met there, Peter surely would have known this verse and this course of action and would NOT have built upon Paul's work in Rome.

(1 Cor 3:10 KJV) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul makes it clear: The FOUNDATION of the Church is JESUS CHRIST, not Peter.

(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

In that last passage, ALL the Apostles are called foundations, NOT JUST PETER, and it is CLEAR:: Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, NOT PETER, and ALL the Apostles are given the same rank and status, and PETER is NOT NAMED ONCE.

(Gal 2:7 KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(Gal 2:8 KJV) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

(Gal 2:9 KJV) 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.

And Again, Paul clearly states PAUL is the Apostle to the Uncircumcision, and also noteworthy, in Gal 2:9, Look again what PAUL said::

(Gal 2:9 KJV) 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.

Paul called 3 men, 3 Apostles the pillars of the Church, 3 men, not just Peter!!

Like I said before: Doctrine needs to be based on the Bible and what it says. People who read the Bible and interpret the Bible in light of their doctrine are in error. The Bible should tell you what your doctrine is, instead of your doctrine telling you what the Bible clearly says.

There are just too many ways to Biblically defeat the doctrine of Peter's supremacy in the Church. He WAS an Apostle, and that is greater than I ever will be, but as far as the FOUNDER or LEADER ALONE of the Church, someone who is considered the foundation of the Christian Church in Europe or something, that is just not Biblical.

You also just showed you do not know your Bible when you said this:

Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.

Well, just what was Jesus doing here in this collection of verses then, if not using SCRIPTURE as the final authority on faith and morals?

(Mat 12:3 KJV) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

(Mat 12:5 KJV) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

(Mat 21:16 KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

(Mat 21:42 KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

(Mat 22:31 KJV) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

(Mark 2:25 KJV) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

(Mark 12:10 KJV) And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

(Mark 12:26 KJV) And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

(Luke 4:16 KJV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

(Luke 6:3 KJV) And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him;

Jesus used Scriptue to defeat Satan, not the teachings of the Synagogue, nor the teachings of a future Church that we are disputing about:

(Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

(Mat 4:7 KJV) Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

(Mat 4:10 KJV) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Paul's statement of the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15 is NOT the subject of what you claimed, either:

(1 Tim 3:15 KJV) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

IT IS GOD that is the Pillar and ground of truth, and it is the SPIRITUAL Church that it is referring to, not any physical building, nor a any sinful man's creation of a denomination.

25 posted on 07/24/2005 5:56:29 AM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Looks like you're reading the Bible in light of the doctrine you were taught.


26 posted on 07/24/2005 7:12:42 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

No, not at all, I am reading the Bible and taking it at it's word, that's all.

Keep reading, you might see it.


27 posted on 07/24/2005 7:24:40 AM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

Just remember, each time the word ROCK is used, name ONE TIME where it CLEARLY is used for a man.

it never is.

NEVER

not once.

Only the RCC tries to tell you it is, that is my point. For Peter to be THE ROCK in that passage, you would have to ignore what was taught in all previous passages about WHO the ROCK was and what THE ROCK was about in order to believe that the ROCK in Matthew was Peter, and not a truth about God and who He is.

Starting right at Deuteronomy. Please re-read what I posted.


28 posted on 07/24/2005 7:27:42 AM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke, only evidence of what language the Bible was written in... I personally believe Jesus spoke Hebrew.

So wait, we don't have any evidence of what Christ spoke (in your opinion of course) so it's wrong to say he spoke Aramaic (which might prove Catholic doctrine) so you then immediately make the assumption that Jesus must have spoke Hebrew (so your doctrines can be proven correct).

Protestants use such tortured logic, and then undermine their whole belief in Sola Scriptura. Look, Christ called Peter the Rock. He then said that on the Rock He would build His Church. Does it get any more clearer than that?
29 posted on 07/24/2005 7:59:46 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
st remember, each time the word ROCK is used, name ONE TIME where it CLEARLY is used for a man. it never is. NEVER not once.

More scripture twisting. I thought Sola Scriptura was supposed to be clear? Peter is the Rock, and on the Rock the Church will be built is pretty clear. But only when it supports Catholic doctrine do you want to start looking at context.
30 posted on 07/24/2005 8:28:47 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Dear Conservative til I die,

Thanks for your posts.

Ironically, the Bible tells us what was Jesus' day-to-day language, and we know it to be Aramaic.


sitetest


31 posted on 07/24/2005 8:33:28 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

it is the RCC that twists scripture, read thee post and address the points made, do not repeat mantras, it only makes you look weak in your knowlege of the Bible


32 posted on 07/24/2005 11:42:48 AM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
No, not at all, I am reading the Bible and taking it at it's word, that's all.

If you'd only posted Scripture that would be true. But you posted your interpretation along with it and it is your interpretation that is in "light of your doctrine".

I know many Protestants find this surprising, but your interpretation of Scripture is not the same as Scripture.

33 posted on 07/24/2005 12:04:35 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

I didnt post my interpretation, I posted simple grammer rules and simple methods of diagrammng sentences.

It is plain to see if you just look and read it for its face value.

name ONE instance in Scripture where ROCK is used to describe a human.

Even in Matthew,

PETER is a STONE, not a rock!

For EACH instance in Scripture where ROCK is used in a spiritual context,

it is ALWAYS connected to WHO GOD IS,

NOT a human.

Not once, not ever.

Go back to Deuteronomy, that is where the references begin.

Follow what the BIBLE SAYS, not what you want it to say!

In order to defend the RCC doctine on this, you have to dismiss the entire Bible to make the point that Peter is THE ROCK

Whereas if you follow the BIBLE and the pattern God laid out centuries before in Scripture, THE ROCK is ALWAYS God and who GOD is, not a man, never a man, never will be a man.


34 posted on 07/24/2005 12:17:32 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
We have absolutely no evidence of what language Jesus spoke...

There is plenty of evidence. Some people just choose to ignore it.

Aramaic of Jesus

35 posted on 07/24/2005 12:23:12 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; Titanites
Whereas if you follow the Bible and the pattern laid out centuries before in SCRIPTURE,THE ROCK is always God,and who GOD is,not a man,never a man,never will be man.

What about IS.51:1 and 2? Those passages say:

Give ear to me,you that follow that which is just,and you that seek the Lord:Look to the ROCK from which you were hewn,to the pit from which you were dug out.

Look to Abraham,your father,and to Sarah that bore you:for I called him alone,and blessed him and multiplied him."

So it seems to me that he referred to another man as Rock,and significantly,it was the other man whose name He changed,to reflect a new "assignment" from God.

BTW,I did not answer the post you directed to me because it seemed that you were responding to someone else's post.

36 posted on 07/24/2005 7:44:47 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Titanites; Yehuda; SJackson

Thank you for the first detailed site I have seen on this!

http://www.answers.com/topic/aramaic-of-jesus

While I wont argue that Aramaic was never spoken, (it probably sounded like I was, I didn't mean it to be something that I thought never happened), I will stick to my statement that Hebrew was the most common language Jesus spoke, but I will also expand on what I think but didn't say, that I recognize Jesus most likely certainly knew certain phrases or even spoke fluently those other languages like Aramaic and maybe even Greek.

My thoughts have to do with the language handed down through Israel, before all the conquests they endured over time; from Egypt, Greece, Persia, Syria, Assyria, there had to be a plethora of languages just like 1949 Israel had.

However, the first language of Abraham is what I would place my bet on with Jesus main spoken tongue. While I have no Biblical evidence verse by verse, when the languages that were created at Babel happened, Abraham's ancestors spoke the same language from that day, Abraham spoke that language they spoke, Abraham's sons spoke the language their father spoke, and so did their sons, and so on.

Other languages would be learned such as Egyptian during the period of slavery, but certainly the Israelites would have retained their own language, (like hispanics do today and Polish, and Vietnamese to name a few modern peoples here in the USA), especially proven thorough Moses written account of the first 5 books of the Bible and copied letter for letter over the years.

Certainly when Jesus spoke in the Temple at the start of His ministry, that was Hebrew for He read out of the scroll itself. If Hebrew was NOT the main language of the people, then where are the copies of Aramaic Scrolls of the Torah? Where are the copies of Aramaic writings of carvings?

I have been to the British Museum in London, and among the displays of the time are HEBREW carvings of letters that were etched in stone, to represent the people of Israel, and not any in Aramaic that I saw at all. In fact, in the book they published in 1991, "THE BIBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, I dont remember any Aramaic discoveries that were included at all. Certainly the British Museum would have doen so if it was a genuine Biblical language of the Jews at that time.

Certainly some words were in Aramaiac, for the examples shown on that site (Thank you, I never found it in my searches), but for these verses to be separated from all the others, to be written in Aramaic while others were in Greek, that tells us that Aramaic was NOT the common tongue or else all the verses would be in AAramaic and only small portions would be in Greek!

Think of that! If Aramaic was the main language of Jesus, then why are only certain verses highlighted with small particular phrases in Aramaic, and not the entire New Testament?

It would make no sense to highlight the smallest number of verses that have Aramaic phrases if the entire conversation was in Aramaic.

That logic alone tells me that Aramaic was NOT the main language of Jesus time.


37 posted on 07/24/2005 8:10:42 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Titanites; Yehuda; SJackson
Hmm, I sent my response to the Asst Pastor of my Church to check what he knows, and I then found this from our church website. I got a feeling he is going to say we are both wrong! :) But he does certainly agree more with you.:

Englishman's Greek

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Language of the New Testament


 

1A.  The Original Languages of the Bible.

1B.  The vast majority of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. There are a few exceptions where certain portions of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic (a language similar to Hebrew).

The portions of the O.T. written in Aramaic are these:

Daniel 2:4-7:28  (Read Daniel 2:4 and see the note in the Scofield Bible.)

Ezra 4:8-6:18  and Ezra 7:12-26

Genesis 31:47 (two words); Jeremiah 10:11

2B.  The entire New Testament was written in Greek.

2A.  New Testament Greek

1B.   History

1C.  Classical Greek (also called Attic Greek)

This was the language of Athens in her glory (Plato, Thucydides, Demosthenes).

2C.  Hellenization was the adoption of the Greek language and culture by other countries as the result of the conquests of Alexander the Great (4th century B.C.).

3C.  The language of the Roman Empire

The Romans conquered the world but they did not suppress the Greek language.  The common language of the Roman empire was Greek not Latin (Latin was the official language).  The Greek language was freely used and understood throughout the Roman empire, being spoken freely on the streets of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Athens.  It helped to unify the empire because everyone shared the same language.

4C.  People living in the Roman empire were bilingual.  They all spoke Greek, the common language, and they also each had their local language.

1D.  What languages did the Lord speak?   The languages of Palestine were Aramaic (the local language) and Greek (the common, universal language of the empire).

2D.  See Acts 2:8-11 compared with Acts 2:14

These Jews all spoke their native language but they also could all understand Peter when he preached to them in Greek.  Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter in Greek also.  As you would travel around the empire, you might not know a person's native language, but you could still communicate because everyone knew Greek.

3D.  The Epistle to the Romans--What language was it written in?   Since Paul wrote to the Romans, you might think that he would write in the native Italian language, which back then was Latin.  But Paul did not do this.  He wrote the Epistle to the Romans in Greek which the people of Rome understood, and which could also be understood by everyone else in the empire.

4D.  The superscription on the cross was tri-lingual (John 19:20).  1) Hebrew (actually Aramaic) was the local language of Palestine;  2) Greek was the common, universal language of the empire;  3) Latin was the official (governmental) language of the empire.

2BKoiné Greek (pronounced Koy-Nay)--A Common Language for the Common Man

1C.  The Koiné period was from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D.

2C.  What was Koiné Greek?

1D.  Compare the Greek word koinonia   koinwniva   (1 John 1:3).   It is translated "fellowship" and it means "sharing in COMMON."   The key idea is "common."   Koiné Greek simply means "common Greek."

2D.  Koiné Greek was the LINGUA FRANCA of the Roman Empire.   Lingua Franca means a language used as the common or commercial tongue among peoples of diverse speech and backgrounds.

3D.  Koiné Greek was the normal spoken language of the Roman Empire (compare the word VERNACULAR which refers to the normal, spoken form of a language, the language used in common discourse).

Koiné Greek was the common language of everyday life.  It was the language of ordinary street conversation. It was the common language of the masses, the natural and living language that was used during this period.

4D.  Koiné Greek was different from classical Greek, somewhat analogous to the way the English commonly used today is different from Shakespearian English (even the way modern English is different from KJV English).  The people of the first century might read Plato's Greek and they could understand it, but they certainly did not speak Plato's Greek at home or in the market place!  In a similar way, we could read Shakespeare and understand it somewhat, but we would not use that kind of English in our common communication.  There is sometimes a wide gap between the language of literature and the language of everyday living.

5D.  God used Koiné Greek as the means through which He communicated His gospel to men.  The Bible is an uncommon Book communicated in a common language to common people with a common need for the salvation that is found in our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The fact that the gospel message was penned and spoken in Koiné Greek was a huge advantage for the early missionary movement of the first century and beyond.  Paul could travel throughout the Roman Empire and could go to various countries without ever having a language problem or without ever needing an interpreter.  Everyone could understand the common Greek which Paul preached and which was the language of the New Testament books.

3A.  The Old Testament in Greek:   THE SEPTUAGINT (abbreviated as LXX).

1B.  What was the Septuagint?   It was a translation of the Old Testament (from Hebrew to Greek) so that the Jewish people living in Greek speaking countries could understand the Scriptures.

2B.  The date of this translation:   Approximately 250 B.C.  [Note: There are some "KJV Only" advocates who teach that the Septuagint was not completed until after the NT books were written, but this theory is totally unfounded and contrary to manuscript evidence.]

3B.  This translation was done in Alexandria (Egypt).

4B.  The origin of this translation:  "Uncertainty is attached to the origin of the LXX, and its beginning is enshrouded in legend.  Its alleged seventy-two translators (six from each of the twelve tribes) is traditional, the number seventy (LXX) apparently being an approximation for seventy-two; or the number seventy may have developed in the course of tradition" (Unger).

5B.  The language of the LXX was Koine Greek, the same kind of Greek as found in the Greek New Testament.

6B.  The influence of the LXX in the days of Christ:  The majority of NT quotations and allusions are from the LXX.  The Jews considered it a valuable translation of the Old Testament and they esteemed it highly.  The Lord Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX (though not always).

7B.  The value of the LXX:  It is an ancient translation.  As such it has been helpful in the science and art of textual criticism as applied to the Old Testament.  The LXX also helps in understanding many New Testament words.  The meaning of words is determined by usage and as we see how certain words are used in the LXX, this can shed light on the meaning of these same words as they are used in the NT.  The LXX also forms a connecting link between the OT and the NT (one complete Bible in the same language). 

8B.  The limitations of the LXX:  No translation is perfect and this is certainly true of the LXX.  "Surveying the translation in its entirety, it may be said that it varies in its standard of excellence. The Pentateuch is on the whole a close and serviceable translation. The Psalms, on the other hand, and the book of Isaiah show obvious signs of incompetence" (Unger).

9B.  Lessons we can learn from the LXX:  1)  No translation made by man is perfect; some are better than others.  The LXX is an excellent translation of the first five books, but not so good in other places. 2) Although the LXX was far from perfect, the Lord Jesus used it at times (quoted from it, etc.) and we have no record that He never condemned it.  Perhaps there is a lesson is this for those today who claim that a certain Bible translation is a perfect translation and teach that every other translation should be utterly condemned.  Was this really the attitude of the Lord Jesus?  


The Middletown Bible Church
349 East Street
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 346-0907
Back to Englishman's Greek Table of Contents

Home Page

More Articles on Bible Study


38 posted on 07/24/2005 8:18:03 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: saradippity

(Isa 51:1 KJV) Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.

(Isa 51:2 KJV) Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

That rock sounds more like the place of despair or distress where they are stuck, where they are placed between, look at the second half of the verse, was Abraham also the hole in the pit??

No, Abraham is not connected to the word ROCK here, where did you get that? Rock here represents a situation, a place of being, an anology of where the state of Israel is in the time of coming judgement.

Rock here is not Abraham! :)


39 posted on 07/24/2005 8:26:00 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

iirc, Aramaic was spoken by many Jews in that period; you are correct that most of the Tanakh was written in Hebrew.

FWIW, much of the Talmud was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.


40 posted on 07/24/2005 8:59:09 PM PDT by Yehuda (America: Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE! [" Choke on it, pinkos!"])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
To quote you: "..the ROCK is always God and who GOD is.."

Now you tell me that is this case,"rock" is despair or distress. Yet,he is telling those who are just or righteous and are looking for God,to look at despair and distress and to look into a pit? Makes no sense.

Especially when the next verse says look to Abraham and Sarah. Perhaps the pit was referring to the womb,I would guess that the passages are just two ways of saying the same thing.

I will say that I think there is too much literary license in these passages exemplified by our discussion. However,I think my interpretation is more consonant with a just and merciful God trying to bring His people home.

41 posted on 07/24/2005 9:38:39 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
While I wont argue that Aramaic was never spoken, (it probably sounded like I was, I didn't mean it to be something that I thought never happened), I will stick to my statement that Hebrew was the most common language Jesus spoke

Actually, it wasn't, but that doesn't help you anyway: the alleged "Petros/petra" pun doesn't exist in Hebrew anymore than it exists in Aramaic.

BTW, we know very well that Peter was called "Rock" in Aramaic, because the Aramaic "Kepha" (="Rock") is the origin of the name "Cephas," which is simply Kepha transliterated into Greek.

And, no, Jesus didn't call Peter a "stone". The word for stone is "lithos". "Petros" was used for small stone in classical Greek poetry, but not in the Koine Greek of the New Testament. (Matthew was probably not written originally in Greek anyway, but in Hebrew or Aramaic.) Peter was called "Petros" because Petros is the masculine-declension analogue of "petra" (=rock). Jesus couldn't have called Simon "Petra" if he'd wanted to, because petra has feminine gender and He would have effectively been giving Peter a woman's name.

42 posted on 07/24/2005 10:11:32 PM PDT by Campion (Truth is not determined by a majority vote -- Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; Catholicguy
The doctrines of Peter being the ROCK are clearly not supported by Scripture.

Here is an intersting post submitted by Catholicguy, based on the writings of Fr. Stanley Jaki in "This Rock":

    The Psalms, as already shown, were most emphatic on the point that God was Rock (Sur); that he was only Rock: and that this was why he was the only one called Rock. As the psalmist put it, common folks were mere breath, and great men but illusions. Had Jesus called Simon sur and not kepha, Andrew, John and Simon might have sensed something of a blasphemy. Being the disciple of John the Baptizer, all three had the Law and the Prophets as their staple conversation. Even if they did not learn to read the scrolls, they had learned by ear many passages from the Bible.

    On hearing Jesus call Simon kepha, they were spared sensing a touch of blasphemy in Jesus' words. Yet they could hardly help also sensing the similarity between sur and kepha. Jesus' choice of kepha left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman. The coexistence of human and superhuman in Simon vs the source of his spiritual drama, a drama to be continued in his often all too human successors.

    Certainly, Simon was mere man. When a year or so later Jesus started his march toward Jerusalem, where Yahweh the Rock was present in a special way, to fulfill the eternal plan implied in his name "Yahweh is salvation," it was Simon, already called Rock, who remonstrated. Only a mere man could fail to derive firmness of purpose from the dazzling light in which his Master appeared only a few hours earlier in his transfiguration on the Mountain of Tabor. Simon the Rock was rebuked by being called Satan, a rebuke administered with a firmness that could only come from someone uniquely hewn out of Yahweh, the Rock.

    Yet it was Simon called Rock who perceived that Christ was hewn of a divine Rock. He shared not the popular evaluation of Christ as a latter-day Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. To Christ's question - "and you, who do you say that I am?" - Simon, called Rock, answered: "you are the Messiah, the son of the living God." Of that God he knew that he was the Rock of Israel, the everlasting Rock. It is not difficult to guess what Simon must have felt when his name, a pledge of a new reality, was turned into a most novel and momentous reality as he heard the words which made history. They did so partly because they were cast in an unmistakably Aramaic rhythm which through its genuineness tied those words to a specific hour of history. History was to reverberate from the rhythm of the words: "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it."

    In the same breath and the same unmistakable rhythm Jesus also gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to that Rock.

    Simon was now Rock, the rock foundation of his Master's church, and not merely the carrier of the name "Rock" which the same Master gave him at the moment of their first meeting. The name obviously had a far deeper meaning than boanerges (sons of thunder), the name Jesus gave to James and John. While Yahweh thundered, he was never called "thunder" of "thunderer." Only pagan gods could be thunderers (Jupiter was one of them), sources of fright; and never, like a rock, sources of safety. Although the Twelve had their differences and disputes - they all wanted to be the first in the Kingdom of God and they all wanted the best seats there - it is unlikely that they disputed the name kepha given to Simon. If it had just been equivalent to "rocky," it would have probably prompted a joke or some taunt. Being closely synonymous with sur, the name kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the Twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.

    Obviously, a name of such connotation could not be the vehicle of that disapproval which lurks behind Jesus calling James and John boanerges. This name, not at all praise worthy, was for a passing moment, whereas kepha was a name to last for the sake of everlasting praise. This everlasting perspective of kepha is also suggested by the fact that in spite of having been named and made Simon the Rock, Christ kept referring to him as Simon, son of Jonah. Such was Christ's subtle way of making it clear that as long as he was visibly present he alone was the spiritual Rock. Yet, it should seem remarkable that this subtle strategy did not make the others forget that Simon was Rock. While recalling long-past encounters between Christ and Simon, the Evangelists referred to Simon as Cephas without forgetting that Christ had addressed him as Simon. Such is an uncanny evidence of the awareness of the Evangelists that Jesus did not, in a sense, encourage the practice of referring to Simon as Cephas. He left that practice to arise from the spiritual resources of the community of the faithful he was to leave behind as lambs and sheep entrusted to Simon Peter.

    Jesus' words turning Simon into Rock were pronounced "in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi." This was the area of the headwaters of the Jordan, the sacred river that stopped flowing so that the ark could be carried dry-shod into the Promised Land. As pious Jews, Jesus and the Twelve could not go right to the spring in that "fathomless" cavity because its very vicinity was exploited for Pan's rites. Those rites brought at times even death to some panic-stricken victims of an idolatry which could readily issue in unbridled debauchery. Such rites were the fearful encroachment of death on the sacred river at its very source, a source which provided the water for Jesus' baptism, the prototype of the rite by which the power of Satan is broken. Standing at a distance, Jesus and the Twelve must have been impressed by the massive wall of rock rising over the source of the Jordan. Here was a sacred river taking its origin through an opening in a massive wall of rock, an opening which could evoke the wide-open jaws of death - both spiritual and physical death. Against this backdrop Jesus spoke to Simon: "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it." To echo such words called for a wall of rock.

    That such was the background will not appear mere conjecture if one is ready to go by Matthew's instruction to "the neighborhood of Caesarea Phillipi." as that that very background. It will appear even less of a conjecture if one recalls Jesus' fondness for choosing appropriate backdrops for his words. Jason's ancient and hallowed well at Sichem heard his words about living waters which only he could give. The feast of the tabernacles with its torches, heard the declaration that he was the light of the world. The ripening harvest heard his urging that the Master of the harvest be asked to send more harvesters into it, for the work to be done was immense in proportion to the number of workers. The little child whom he called over was visible demonstration to his adult apostles that unless they became like little children they were not to enter the Kingdom of God.

    Jesus never did anything without planning. He said only what he wanted. He did only what he intended. His enemies’ plans could not be fulfilled until his hour had come. He went to Jerusalem only when it was appropriate for his purposes. His enemies could not lay their hands on him until he handed himself over to them...

    He certainly knew that being called Rock (sur) was a most sacred privilege of Yahweh through the entire Old Testament. If anyone, he knew what was implied in calling Simon, a mere man, kepha or Rock, a word closely synonymous with sur. He certainly knew how much more was implied in turning that mere man into the Rock on which he would build his church with a stability that was haring in the permanence of Yahweh himself.

    Knowing all this, and being "in the neighborhood of Caesarea Phillipi, Jesus would not have been faithful to his pedagogy if he had not chosen that massive wall of rock as the backdrop for his historic words "upon this rock."


43 posted on 07/25/2005 7:08:05 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; Aquinasfan
The Bible nowhere grants Peter any authority that is not also given to the other disciples.

Here is another post, this one from Aquinasfan:

    In Isaiah 22, we see the existence of the historical office of the vice-regent (vice-king) of the kingdom of David. In the king's absence, the vice-regent held full plenary authority. As a sign of his authority, the vice-regent wore a pouch around his neck which contained a key --the key to the kingdom.

    In the passage from Isaiah, we see this office being transferred from Shebna to Eliakim:

    Isaiah 22:20-23
    "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.

    Jesus is the eternal king of the House of David who is the power behind the keys. Revelation 3:7

    These are the words of him who is holy and true [Jesus], who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

    When Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom," he is placing Peter in the office of vice-regent of the eternal House of David, Christ's Church:
    Matthew 16:18-19

    I tell you that you are Rock (Peter), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”


44 posted on 07/25/2005 7:31:15 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Campion

No, I posted the Greek for the word stone, so, you missed it there.

And if I remember correctly, the Douay agrees with me.


45 posted on 07/25/2005 2:25:36 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yep, Peter was a pretty special man.

But didnt Jesus reference John as his favorite?


46 posted on 07/25/2005 2:32:57 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saradippity

Yes, it does, God speaks that way many times, he is not telling them to TRUST the rock they are hewn to, He is telling them to be ashamed at the rock they are hewn to, the sin of their nation, the predicament they are in because of their national sin.


47 posted on 07/25/2005 3:34:37 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; Titanites; Yehuda; SJackson

My Asst Pastor's response by e-mail:

Aramaic was the commonly spoken language of Palestine in the time of
Christ, and it was very similar to Hebrew.

Greek was the common language of the empire, and most Jews also knew
Greek.

Latin was the official language, since the Romans were in power.

Hence, the superscription on the cross was in three languages: Hebrew
(or Aramaic), Greek and Latin.

George Zeller
Check out our website:
www.middletownbiblechurch.org

I already posted the page that said this in detail.

I was wrong!


48 posted on 07/25/2005 3:36:06 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Race,

Speaking about things that aren't in the bible, has your assistant pastor been able to formulate a statement on salvation for you to believe in? I'm still waiting for a concise, complete, and well organized summary of your theory of salvation doctrine, so that I can check to see if it's in the bible or not. Have you found the three minutes it would take to type that up? You've claimed that Catholics are not Christians, that they worship a fall Jesus, and that Catholics "re-write" scripture. Since your claim that one and a half billion Catholics are not Christians apparently rests on your authoritative understanding of Salvation doctrine, I'm quite eager to see it. And again Race, no 15 page email is required, nor a long list of scriptures that you feel imply your view. Just put your opinion in your own words, one or two paragraphs should do the trick, and I will be happy to request scripture support if I find it lacking.
49 posted on 07/25/2005 4:08:55 PM PDT by InterestedQuestioner (Against the gospel according to Looney tunes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Excuse my typo. Your comment was that Catholics worship a false Jesus.
50 posted on 07/25/2005 4:13:35 PM PDT by InterestedQuestioner (Against the gospel according to Looney tunes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson