What is God's first creation?

[Idolater]

Because in Greek they're two different nouns/words with totally different meanings, the gender determining the meaning.

But nonetheless, you say that 'petra' refers to Christ Himself, and He is a male, like Peter. Why does the word become 'petros' for Peter, but remains 'petra' for Christ?

 

[JudgeRightly]

But buildings are not built upon the cornerstone, the cornerstone is part of the building, as the cornerstone is the stone in the foundation that sets the angle for the building's eventual walls. Christ is the Cornerstone of the Church, for sure, but the Lord Himself said that He'd build His Church (including her foundation, of which the Cornerstone is critically integral) 'upon' Peter, the 'Rock.' Matthew 16:18 KJV

Except scripture doesn't say "I will build the church on Peter," it says "I will build the church on this rock.

Petros means "a piece of rock" in Greek.
Petra means "a mass of rock" in Greek.

They are two similar words that both mean "rock," but they specify what kind of rock.

Jesus (petra) is the foundation. Peter (petros) is a rock on that rock.

Again, Jesus is referred to multiple times throughout the NT as "rock," "stone," "cornerstone," etc.

Why would God want to build the church on a fallible man, when He could build it on the Infallible Man, Christ Jesus?

 

[Idolater]

Except scripture doesn't say "I will build the church on Peter," it says "I will build the church on this rock.

Petros means "a piece of rock" in Greek.
Petra means "a mass of rock" in Greek.

They are two similar words that both mean "rock," but they specify what kind of rock.

Jesus (petra) is the foundation. Peter (petros) is a rock on that rock.

Again, Jesus is referred to multiple times throughout the NT as "rock," "stone," "cornerstone," etc.

Why would God want to build the church on a fallible man, when He could build it on the Infallible Man, Christ Jesus?

In Matthew 16:18 KJV, 'rock' means Peter (and, as I've already granted, Peter's Trinitarian confession of faith in Mt16:16KJV). It's right in the same verse. There's no reason to doubt what is meant here, save for anti-Catholic bias, which you display in spades, along with almost every other non-Catholic. Except me.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But nonetheless, you say that 'petra' refers to Christ Himself, and He is a male, like Peter. Why does the word become 'petros' for Peter, but remains 'petra' for Christ?

Because one word is a name, the other is used as a metaphor.

Or do you assert that all words in a metaphor must reflect the gender of the person they are being attributed to? Because as far as I'm aware, there is no such standard.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

But nonetheless, you say that 'petra' refers to Christ Himself, and He is a male, like Peter. Why does the word become 'petros' for Peter, but remains 'petra' for Christ?

The fact Christ is Male is irrelavent. In the Greek due to how the language is structured linguistically the gender as denoted by the speaker matters. Hence the differences as i've already explained.

This is not unsual. Its the same for many "Romance" languages.

 

[Idolater]

Because one word is a name, the other is used as a metaphor.

Or do you assert that all words in a metaphor must reflect the gender of the person they are being attributed to? Because as far as I'm aware, there is no such standard.

The fact Christ is Male is irrelavent. In the Greek due to how the language is structured linguistically the gender as denoted by the speaker matters. Hence the differences as i've already explained.

This is not unsual. Its the same for many "Romance" languages.

Then there are two metaphors in this same verse. One is applying the otherwise feminine noun 'petra' to Peter, a male, and the other is applying the same 'petra' to Christ, also a male.

 

[Danoh]

But nonetheless, you say that 'petra' refers to Christ Himself, and He is a male, like Peter. Why does the word become 'petros' for Peter, but remains 'petra' for Christ?

For the same reason The One New Man is described in the feminine at the end of Ephesians.

While Peter, the at times prone to glaring instabilities would not have been, and was not The Rock.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: ) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 2:12 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. 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

By Acts 15, James was the one in charge at Jerusalem...

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

While, missing from the list of key figures at Rome, near the end of Romans (written as late as it was) is Peter's name.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In Matthew 16:18 KJV, 'rock' means Peter

You've got it backwards. The word 'rock' in English can be translated into a couple different words in Greek.

You're doing what GT does, and ignoring the Greek. Petra and petros both mean rock, to be sure, but they are two distinct words indicating the kind of rock, and how much.

Once again:

Petros (Peter's name in Greek) means "a piece of rock," or a stone, like that which you can throw.
Petra (not a name at all, just a noun) means "a large (mass of) rock," like a cliff or plateau.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g4073

(and, as I've already granted, Peter's Trinitarian confession of faith in Mt16:16KJV).

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

It's right in the same verse. There's no reason to doubt what is meant here,

There's no reason to assert that petros and petra are speaking of the same rock, because they mean two different kinds of rock.

save for anti-Catholic bias, which you display in spades, along with almost every other non-Catholic. Except me.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Why would God want to build the church on a fallible man, when He could build it on the Infallible Man, Christ Jesus?

This is problematic doctrinally for Catholics as their faith is built on the primacy of Peter and thus the lineage they claim for their Pope which they alledge goes back to Peter. To deny that would be to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety. Hence the mental gymnastics required by adherents to reconcile the primacy they place on Peter over Jesus Christ the actual originator of the faith.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then there are two metaphors in this same verse. One is applying the otherwise feminine noun 'petra' to Peter, a male, and the other is applying the same 'petra' to Christ, also a male.

Petros != petra

Petros = a piece of rock, a stone
Petra = a large (mass of) rock

Peter's name is Petros, he's named after the noun "a piece of rock".

Petra is not applied to Peter.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

You've got it backwards. The word 'rock' in English can be translated into a couple different words in Greek.

You're doing what GT does, and ignoring the Greek. Petra and petros both mean rock, to be sure, but they are two distinct words indicating the kind of rock, and how much.

Once again:

Petros (Peter's name in Greek) means "a piece of rock," or a stone, like that which you can throw.
Petra (not a name at all, just a noun) means "a large (mass of) rock," like a cliff or plateau.

A Classic example of the breadth of the Greek language, four words to denote the single word in English "Love".
Storge, Phillia, Eros and Agape. Each word has a totally different meaning for Love in Greek. All are rendered as simply one word "Love" in English. This is why translation is such a difficult task for the translator as its obviously important for the meaning to be retained for the translation to be useful, especially when dealing with a Holy scripture like the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

For the same reason The One New Man is described in the feminine at the end of Ephesians.

That's because the Church, the Body of Christ, is a lady, as she is His Bride.

While Peter, the at times prone to glaring instabilities would not have been, and was not The Rock.

Christ named him 'The Rock.'
You're anti-Catholic bias won't permit you to accept even Peter's own name, as it's 'too Catholic' for you.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: ) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 2:12 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. 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

This matter was all cleared up in Acts 15, the first Church council, which was the example for all future Church councils.

By Acts 15, James was the one in charge at Jerusalem...

James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, as Peter was later on the bishop of the Church in Rome.

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

As Acts 15:14 KJV shows, James agreed with Peter.

While, missing from the list of key figures at Rome, near the end of Romans (written as late as it was) is Peter's name.

So you're actually arguing from silence now, to support your anti-Catholic bias.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

Peter himself, as supreme pastor of the Church, unilaterally declared all of Paul's epistles 'scriptures.' 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV

 

[Idolater]

You've got it backwards. The word 'rock' in English can be translated into a couple different words in Greek.

Translation from English into Greek really isn't the issue here at all.

You're doing what GT does, and ignoring the Greek. Petra and petros both mean rock, to be sure, but they are two distinct words indicating the kind of rock, and how much.

Or, it's merely a transformation of the otherwise feminine 'petra' to apply to Peter, a male. John 1:42 KJV

Once again:

Petros (Peter's name in Greek) means "a piece of rock," or a stone, like that which you can throw.
Petra (not a name at all, just a noun) means "a large (mass of) rock," like a cliff or plateau.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g4073

Once again: John 1:42 KJV, where 'petra' applies to Peter.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

We're talking about which 'rock' Christ is talking about, when He says, "upon this rock I will build My Church" (Mt16:18KJV).

There's no reason to assert that petros and petra are speaking of the same rock, because they mean two different kinds of rock.

Except history. The Church always read Matthew 16:18 KJV as applying to Peter, until anti-Catholic bias emerged, especially after the Reformation. Even the Eastern Orthodox churches accept that 'the rock' upon which Christ said He'd build His Church, is Peter.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation.

Anti-Catholic bias has everything to do with this conversation.

 

[Idolater]

Petros != petra

Petros = a piece of rock, a stone
Petra = a large (mass of) rock

Peter's name is Petros, he's named after the noun "a piece of rock".

Petra is not applied to Peter.

Except in John 1:42 KJV, where it is.

 

[Idolater]

This is problematic doctrinally for Catholics as their faith is built on the primacy of Peter and thus the lineage they claim for their Pope which they alledge goes back to Peter. To deny that would be to deny the Catholic Faith in its entirety. Hence the mental gymnastics required by adherents to reconcile the primacy they place on Peter over Jesus Christ the actual originator of the faith.

If Matthew 16:18 KJV only means Peter the man, then sure, but the Church teaches that the verse has two meanings, one is definitely Peter the man, and thus the papacy, which is Peter's office of the supreme pastorship of the whole Church on earth, and the other is Peter's confession of faith (Mt16:16KJV), a tidy and compact confession of Trinitarian faith.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's because the Church, the Body of Christ, is a lady, as she is His Bride.
Christ named him 'The Rock.'

Please provide scripture that has Jesus calling Peter "petra" and not "petros". (Peter Piper and pickled peppers anyone?)

You're anti-Catholic bias won't permit you to accept even Peter's own name, as it's 'too Catholic' for you.

Your Catholic bias won't permit you to accept that petros is not petra, a word distinct from petros.

This matter was all cleared up in Acts 15, the first Church council, which was the example for all future Church councils.
James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, as Peter was later on the bishop of the Church in Rome.
As Acts 15:14 KJV shows, James agreed with Peter.
So you're actually arguing from silence now, to support your anti-Catholic bias.
Peter himself, as supreme pastor of the Church, unilaterally declared all of Paul's epistles 'scriptures.' 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV

It's not an argument from silence to say that petros and petra are two different words, and that Jesus was calling Peter by his name (petros) and then called Himself the large rock on which the church would be built, because that's what Scripture says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except in John 1:42 KJV, where it is.

Nope. Here's the verse in the NKJV, and I'll post the note after:

And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone). - John 1:42 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:42&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

Translation from English into Greek really isn't the issue here at all.
Or, it's merely a transformation of the otherwise feminine 'petra' to apply to Peter, a male. John 1:42 KJV

See my previous post.

Once again: John 1:42 KJV, where 'petra' applies to Peter.

See my previous post.

We're talking about which 'rock' Christ is talking about, when He says, "upon this rock I will build My Church" (Mt16:18KJV).

Correct. He says "upon this PETRA I will build My church."

Peter is "PETROS." Peter is NOT "PETRA."

Except history. The Church always read Matthew 16:18 KJV as applying to Peter,

Is it possible that they were wrong in doing so?

until anti-Catholic bias emerged, especially after the Reformation. Even the Eastern Orthodox churches accept that 'the rock' upon which Christ said He'd build His Church, is Peter.
Anti-Catholic bias has everything to do with this conversation.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except history. The Church always read Matthew 16:18 KJV as applying to Peter, until anti-Catholic bias emerged, especially after the Reformation. Even the Eastern Orthodox churches accept that 'the rock' upon which Christ said He'd build His Church, is Peter.
Anti-Catholic bias has everything to do with this conversation.

Appealing to tradition is a fallacy.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

If Matthew 16:18 KJV only means Peter the man, then sure, but the Church teaches that the verse has two meanings, one is definitely Peter the man, and thus the papacy, which is Peter's office of the supreme pastorship of the whole Church on earth, and the other is Peter's confession of faith (Mt16:16KJV), a tidy and compact confession of Trinitarian faith.

With all due respect im not concerned about what your Church teaches. What i am concerned about is what the scriptures says on the matter, which incidentally is also incompatible with what your Church teaches.

The Bible is the authority on ALL doctrinal matters. Not the spurious teachings of a Church who claims Peter to be greater than Christ himself. You've been given numerous examples and most all reasons as to why your view is false. But trust me i understand the reasons for your cognitive dissonance also.