Duvduv

Please reread my other posting. I am asking contextual questions.....and note that if an original intention was to interpret the meaning of rock from Kepha to Petros, it was unnecessary to introduce a Greek transliteration of Kepha since Cephas is not the important issue, but rather Kepha in Aramaic to Petros. It would make no difference to a Greek reader whether the guy was named Kepha or Cephas. Petros is equivalent to Kepha, not to Cephas. For that matter, if the issue was the significance of "rock," it was unnecessary to name the guy Cephas altogether. Petros would have been sufficient just like Andreia, Iakobos, etc. Unless, of course, Petros of the gospels and Cephas of the epistles were not the same person.

Then there is the possibility that the name Peter does not refer to ROCK but to the Hebrew word "first born of the womb" (peter-chamor) as in Exodus 13:2, 12, 15, and Num. 8:16

And then of course John 1:42 doesn't make sense because it indicates that the name Cephas did not exist before for Simon son of John, yet the other sources in the NT indicate a person already known as Cephas. In GJohn the naming of Cephas is unrelated to anything else and is superfluous.

Iskander

Thank you Duvduv, It could very well mean what you are suggesting it does


Matthew 16:18 was a political problem in the Christian west. The Roman Pontiff claims divine authority to rule over Christendom: basing his claim on the interpretation of this slimy verse. My interest in this matter is exclusively political.

Duvduv

Then it would logical to assume that the passage in GMatt 16 itself was added at a relatively very late date when the dispute between Rome and the other episcopal centers headed by Constantinople.
I wonder if there were ever epistles from Cephas or a Gospel of Cephas. By Acts poor Cephas disappears........

sotto voce

The Christian West?

I suppose we object to the talking Pink Panther, too.

In the real world, Mt 16:18 is about Jesus claiming to be divine.

Iskander

Duvduv
Yes, it was inserted when the need to justify the love of power arose.
This verse and the following are a perverse version of god seen as the one who abdicates.

It was done by cynical unbelievers who saw god as the goose that laid the golden eggs.



18And I tell you, you are Peter,* and on this rock* I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Duvduv

Does the Greek sound as ambiguous as the English?
"...you are Peter, and on *this* rock I will build my church....."
as opposed to "....you are Peter, *the rock* upon whom I will build my church......"

I suppose an addition of this type means that at some later point the now canonized holy writ was able to be altered.

sotto voce

Readers, see #39.

Duvduv

Just did......thus we see that when speaking to Peter Jesus is referring to something else when indicating "this rock" since he does not say "you are the rock on which...."

sotto voce

Read the rest to know everything.

Sheshbazzar

Readers, see the last paragraph of #38.