ECT More Mid-Matt: Christ gave Peter his Greek name.

[Interplanner]

I mean really, Christ just blows it time and again. First it's the fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, then its the whole country of Syria, both toward the launch of his ministry, and now we've got him using a Greek name for Peter to base the church on. He's so un-MAD.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

There's no refuting!

 

[patrick jane]

There's no refuting!

According to cruciform, Peter's name in Greek is catholic church

 

[steko]

There's no refuting!

Kefa is Aramaic.

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

.....and was at some time later translated into Greek 'Petros'.


Refuted!

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Peter was only a stone, but Christ is the rock on which the true Church is built.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

LA

 

[chrysostom]

why would Jesus create all this confusion by changing simon's name to peter?
-most bible scholars agree peter means rock

 

[lifeisgood]

why would Jesus create all this confusion by changing simon's name to peter?
-most bible scholars agree peter means rock

Christ is NOT the one causing the confusion, RELIGIOUS MEN desiring to replace themselves as Christ cause all the confusion.

Peter is just a pebble (stone) and he himself says that we are pebbles (stones) also (1 Peter 2).

Jesus the Christ is the ROCK from which pebbles come from and the pebbles rest on the ROCK which is Jesus the Christ, not the RCC organization (RCCO); it matters not how much the RCCO scream they have taken the place of Jesus the Christ Himself.

The current Pope:
In my pocket I always carry two thing: a rosary to pray something which seems odd, this is here is the history of God’s failure, it’s the way of the cross, a small way of the cross, as Jesus suffered and when they condemned him right up to where he was buried with these two things (WHEN was Jesus the Christ buried with the rosary and the cross?) I do the best I can. (I, the current Pope, keep on working to be saved and maybe God will like the works of my hands which have been rejected a long time ago already.) And thanks to these two things, I never lose hope (I, the current Pope, do NOT have hope in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary, exclusively plus absolutely nothing, but I, the current Pope, have placed my hope on the rosary and the cross I carry in my pocket).
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...rful-unscripted-talk-with-kenyas-youth-72927/

How sad that a man possessing such a platform to preach the ONLY way to God --- Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross of Calvary --- exclusively, plus absolutely nothing --- chooses to preach carry a rosary and a cross in your pocket and you also will never lose hope. How sad indeed!

 

[Interplanner]

Kefa is Aramaic.

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

.....and was at some time later translated into Greek 'Petros'.


Refuted!

I thought you all knew. it is not Peter as a person that is the foundation but the fact Christ is the Messiah. By declaring that, Peter was dubbed the Rock, but in light of the truth of the confession, not because of his persona.

I didn't realize most of you thought it was Peter as a person.

 

[Interplanner]

why would Jesus create all this confusion by changing simon's name to peter?
-most bible scholars agree peter means rock

He nicknamed him because of the solid confession--it's strength. Christ is the Messiah that was expected. He was not saying Peter was the solid substance.

Please forget this aspect of the debate. The point of the thread was: the name was Greek. Simon was Hebrew or Aramaic. Why bother with Greek things in Mid-Matt? Too bad for the Mid-Acts-Mads, because they are book late.

 

[Danoh]

I thought you all knew. it is not Peter as a person that is the foundation but the fact Christ is the Messiah. By declaring that, Peter was dubbed the Rock, but in light of the truth of the confession, not because of his persona.

I didn't realize most of you thought it was Peter as a person.

Your usual reading into the words of another, as usual...

 

[jamie]

Please forget this aspect of the debate. The point of the thread was: the name was Greek. Simon was Hebrew or Aramaic. Why bother with Greek things in Mid-Matt? Too bad for the Mid-Acts-Mads, because they are book late.

The word "peter" is Hebrew for firstborn as in the church of the firstborn. (Hebrews 12:23)

 

[ok doser]

Peter was a Galilean fishermen

would he have understood greek?

 

[steko]

I thought you all knew. it is not Peter as a person that is the foundation but the fact Christ is the Messiah. By declaring that, Peter was dubbed the Rock, but in light of the truth of the confession, not because of his persona.

I didn't realize most of you thought it was Peter as a person.

I wasn't arguing that point at all.
I know that it was the 'confession'.

My point was that Christ was speaking Hebrew/Aramaic when He was speaking to Peter, calling him 'Kefa', not 'Peter', which is Greek. The Lord was not giving Peter a Greek name. The Greek name, 'Peter' came later through translation.

 

[Interplanner]

I wasn't arguing that point at all.
I know that it was the 'confession'.

My point was that Christ was speaking Hebrew/Aramaic when He was speaking to Peter, calling him 'Kefa', not 'Peter', which is Greek. The Lord was not giving Peter a Greek name. The Greek name, 'Peter' came later through translation.

Sorry can't take that without footnotes. If you follow Stroebel's summary of transmission, which is about the best for the average person, it was two years after the Res that 'quelle' or the verbal version of Mark was believed to be set. In a year or two following that is the written form in Greek, which names Peter as such. Matthew is longer than Mark and so is thought to have been next in order, because Luke says he went back and researched all previous accounts. Matthew copies Mark in calling Simon Peter with the Greek name. So the event happened as stated in Mk and Mt even though Aramaic was being used. Otherwise the note (in the text like Mt 16:18) 'you are [Rock] and on this [rock of Messiahship] I will build my church' would not have the craft or play on words that it has.

There is no reason to think that the written Greek form is so much later that it was a separate idea; it is what actually took place and the amount of time between the actual event and the written form we have is as short as a couple years.