[quote="GaryTaylor, post:18, topic:282390"]
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, Catholic Answers
Same drum role I see no validity to the debate. ;)
Here is another example of what a Protestant says. I love Honest Protestants and there are many. Christianity demands honesty and those Protestants that obey and believe what Christ teaches have to admit honestly what they discover. This is the beauty of those Protestants I speak with when they express honesty...in spite of their prejudice.
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to
petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the
same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon
which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been
made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession
itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice
against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
(“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books,
It is also important to note that what we have here is the example of where is the ultimate authority in Protestant thought. It cannot be the Church. If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and the vehicle through which the manifold wisdom of God is known then this issue would not need discussion. No number of Protestants can agree to impart a belief that all must and will believe or deny.
Those Protestants that dispute this confirm that there is no higher authority on earth concerning resolving an issue than their mind...for they cannot take it to the Church....which Church can any Protestant take this issue to and find reconciliation with something that all will believe and agree on. This confirms the Protestant paradigm as ineffective and untrue.
How many Protestants can I post that disagree with Igg? How many opinions can I provide that disagree with Igg? How many times will Igg disagree.
How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man...the answer is blowin in the wind........:)