The Primacy of Peter

Where Is That In The Bible | Patrick Madrid

[GipperGal]

Context, context, context.

Well look who just caught up!

Context! Yes, that's right, my friend. Context is the name of the game! And if you pay attention to historical context, you'd understand that the primacy of Peter has been established since the time of the Apostles and has been affirmed from the beginning by the same Church that gave you the very bible with which you have the unmitigated effrontery to use as a tool to discredit the authority of the Church.

[NYer]

Now wait just a darn minute there, missy! Everybody knows Jesus spoke English. Why it's right there in bible all in red letters!

Of course it is .

PS - Abouna charmed our novena 'visitors' so much that they took out a 6 month ad in our parish bulletin, plan to attend the annual Hafli (@$50 per person) and will return for the Christmas Novena, if not sooner :-) What a man!

[InterestedQuestioner]

And that is why Peter and Rock are not compatible. :) Peter and Rock fail all those tests.

Race, I think your personal prejudices are interfering with an honest reading of scripture. The bible says Peter is the Rock, in fact that's what Peter means.

As an exercise in bible-based criticism, I suggest you describe your theory of salvation. I doubt that it will pass a test of comparison against the bible.

[InterestedQuestioner]

LOL!

[GipperGal]

I love your tag line!!!

[Titanites]

If there is a better word, that is one thing, but there can be only ONE interpretation if it is read right.

And, of course, we're supposed to accept it that your reading is the right one. Hmmm. I think I'll stick with the scholars.

That is why sentence diagramming is important, and that is why context is important and that is why previous useage of words and context matter.

You do know the original texts had no punctuation, don't you? Good luck with the sentence diagramming.

[GipperGal]

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.

I knew it! I knew that Mel Gibson guy was full of it! See, nobody spoke Aramaic back then. He just made that language up for his movie! It's just like how those guys that made Star Trek invented Klingon so that they could make lots of money teaching seminars to trekkies everywhere.

[Titanites]

And that is why Peter and Rock are not compatable. :) Peter and Rock fail all those tests. And that is not opinion. It is previous usage of the word, it is sentance structure, it is context of the passage.

2000 years of scholarship disagree with your johnny-come-lately sentence structure and context. What you've stated is strictly your opinion based on faulty interpretation, and your interpretation is not Scripture.

[Titanites]

Certainly the British Museum would have doen so if it was a genuine Biblical language of the Jews at that time.

Just don't tell him about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[GipperGal]

Just don't tell him about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You mean they're not in the British Museum?

[NYer]

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.

Guess we'll all have to toss our Bibles. When Jesus cried out on the cross 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' (Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani), He was speaking Aramaic. Many words in the New Testament are transliterations from the Aramaic. Peter's name Cephas is from 'kepha' (rock); Thomas is from 'toma' (twin). 'Bar' the Aramaic word for (son) occurs in such names as Bartholomew, Bar- Jonas, Barabbas and Bartimaeus. (The Hebrew word for son is 'ben' ). Golgotha is from 'golgolta' (skull); and Maranatha comes from 'maran' (our Lord) and 'eta' (come).

Some time after the exile of the Jews to Babylon, Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, called TARGUMS, were made for those who understood Aramaic better than Hebrew. We have targums for all the Old Testament books except Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The earliest extant targums are from Qumran on the Dead Sea. An extensive targum on portions of Job came from one cave and dates from 150-100 BC

[GipperGal]

Well, that's not what Pastor Bob said last Sunday.

/sarc

[Titanites]

And that is why Peter and Rock are not compatable.

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). John 1:42

Kephas = Cephas = petra/petros = Peter

Petra and petros are the Greek forms of the Aramaic Kephas (Cephas), meaning rock, and are genderized. Peter is the anglicized form of petros. Genderization in this manner is not a part of the Aramaic languages. Therefore, the gender distinction found in the Greek is not valid but is a necessity of translation and usage.

See how that fits into your sentence diagramming.

[InterestedQuestioner]

I knew it! I knew that Mel Gibson guy was full of it! See, nobody spoke Aramaic back then. He just made that language up for his movie! It's just like how those guys that made Star Trek invented Klingon so that they could make lots of money teaching seminars to trekkies everywhere.

ROTF LOL.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Aramaic Ping!

[InterestedQuestioner]

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.



Clearly

[RaceBannon]

Cephas is not the word used in Matthew where the RCC claims Peter to be called the ROCK

thats where it fits.

[RaceBannon]

Better than accepting the word of a religion that has invented doctrines for 2000 years almost.

[AnAmericanMother]

Don't forget John 19:13:

When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).

[AnAmericanMother]

LOL!

A governor of Texas once actually said, wrt bilingual education:

"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it is good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas."