SPLIT: The "god" P-T-A-H?


#1

Quote:
The “god” P-T-A-H, according to Egypt was the one who was in charge of the earthly material, Rock, later becoming Peter(Rock) of the updated Christian version. Ptah was “the founder (foundation) of the world.”

Wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah

^I’m interested to read peoples thoughts on the above statement.


#2

I don’t see the connection! Neither the word “rock” nor the word “Peter” is mentioned anywhere in the link you provided.

You formulated your own conclusion I guess in the words “later becoming Peter(Rock) of the updated Christian version”. What’s the point you are trying to make? Be more specific.


#3

:shrug: :confused:


#4

Hello, Spirithound here, Master’s candidate of linguistics.
The name of the Christian gentleman to whom you are referring is Kepha. That’s
[velar stop][vowel][bilabial stop or fricative or labiodental fricative][vowel]. (sorry, my Aramaic isn’t up to par…)
The “god” is Ptah. That’s
[bilabial stop][alveolar stop][vowel].
You’ll note that the velar region is much further back in the mouth than the bilabial place of articulation, thus an evolution of that sort is highly unlikely.
The comparison you’re trying to make is only even marginally tenable in the Romance languages and Romance-influenced languages, and that connection is even strained. Think about this: Peter, Pedro, Pierre. All of them have a rhotic consonant. The Egyptian does not. If there were a connection of any sort, we would expect the Egyptian to have the rhotic consonant too. These things don’t just pop up by accident in each of the “daughter languages” (which Romance and English, which are Indo-European languages, are not, in relation to Ancient Egyptian, which is an Afro-Asiatic language).
Finally, if all that was not enough, do you have any evidence that Ptah was even worshipped in Egypt into the time that Peter lived? Do you have further evidence that the early Christians knew about it? In order to cast any aspersions on Peter, you need to prove proximity of the 2 names, which linguistically I have just demolished, geographically is quite questionable, religiously is absurd, and chronologically is…what? You fill in the last adjective. Furthermore, you need to show causality. That those 2 are the same person. Which means that the Gospels are lies. All lies.


#5

According to the wiki link:
Ptah more literally… meant ‘risen land’. Risen land is a large mass of rock… upon which the cult of Atun was built. Atun… was seen as the underlying substance of the world… was interpreted as being the ‘complete one’… and father to the King.

I’m observing and speculating that:
Peter is the rock (‘risen land’) upon which the Catholic Church is built. The CC has divine authority over material creation (‘underlying substance of the world’) , and is the complete faith (complete one), and up until recent times had the ear of rulers and monarchs because it was the dominating religion (‘father to the King’ - the king listens to and obeys his father).

These similarities appear at first glance to indicate a connection between Egyptian Myths and the formation of the Catholic Church?


#6

You’re a bright boy.


#7

At first glance, they may indicate a connection, but a reasonable mind will reject it at the second glance! :smiley:

Jesus, when he founded the Church on Peter (the rock) was not drawing parallels with Egyptian myths! :slight_smile:


#8

Good point! :slight_smile:


#9

:thumbsup:


closed #10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.