Muad'Dib

Yes, and I don't buy it--at least not completely.

Petros is masculine and refers to a boulder, whereas petra is feminine and denotes bedrock, or a very large rock of some sort.

It is the case that Peter is called Petros, while the foundation (petra) is, strictly speaking, a different term; but it is obviously a play on related words. True, you don't build a house on a stone; but at the same time you also do not violate the rules of grammar, communication, and probably etiquette by calling a man by a feminine name (such as Petra). If the authors of the NT gospels (and this story is one of the few that appears in all four) wanted to strongly associate Peter with the foundation of the church by using a play on words, this phrasing would be one very effective way of accomplishing that end.

On the other hand, if they wished to avoid relating Peter to the foundation of the church, they had several other perfectly good words that they could have used to avoid confusion. They might have said, "On this confession," or "on this truth [that I am the Christ]," for example. They also might have left out the naming of Peter, which doesn't directly support these conclusions: "I say to you that you are Rocky, and by the way, I will build my church on myself." Or, "I name you Rocky (just you), and on the confession that anyone can make I'm going to build my church."

Whatever else we think about the writers of the gospels, it must be acknowledged that they had at the very least a decent grasp of the Greek language (and some clearly had more than that); they knew how to construct and use word-plays, and what they implied--which was far more in the first century than it is today in our sound-byte-drenched world.

(Edited for clarity.)

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]</p>

sullster

Amos, I am sick and tired of church fathers, kings, politicians and fuhrers towering over the masses. It seems clear that history shows that the "all knowing" have led the masses to their demise more than not and that the "games" usually caused disaster.

Stop trying to hand over the hell-threat to the prods. Yes, they sure took it and ran with it but your religion kept the fires of hell burning in the midevil ages.

As for my resentment and anger, wow you noticed. All the sects of xtianity bring it on with me, just occurs naturally.

IvanK

They probably also had, or knew where to find, popular stories about Jesus of Nazareth. And the fact that this one is in all four Gospels suggests it was too well-known for any of the four Evangelists to leave out (unlike the stories about wise men or shepherds that only appear in one or two Gospels). That doesn't in itself mean the verse refers to the Roman Catholic Pope. Peter/Simon/Cephas was a leading figure in the Jerusalem Christian group (if the stories in Acts and elsewhere are to be believed), so this story could have been propagated as self-serving for him within that group, just as it could have been for the later Roman church.

sidewinder

I don't know if any Christians in the 1st century or even early 2nd century called Peter "Pope." However, I think it is clear from the NT sources that Peter was a leader of the Jerusalem church. The author of Matthew's gospel used Mark's gospel as one of his sources. Matthew copied the confession of Peter from Mark, and Matthew added verses 16 to 19 to establish Peter as the original leader (founder, rock, etc.). By the time Matthew was writing his gospel (around 85 to 90 CE), the church was becoming separated from Judaism and was beginning to be concerned about doctrines and authority. At the time Mark was writing his gospel (65 to 70 CE), the church was not yet concerned about establishing doctrines and authority. I think primarily because the early church was expecting the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God (the return of Jesus.) I think Mark probably knew of the tradition about Peter being a leader (founder, rock, etc.) of the church but it wasn't a big concern for him at the time he wrote his gospel. Mark also wasn't concerned about it because it didn't figure significantly into the message of his gospel. I think Matthew took this tradition and used it to establish a line of authority back to the disciples of Jesus.

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sullster:
[QB

If religion troubles you this much what are you doing here? Also, I am not here to offend you and if my post trouble you please do not respond.

Do yourself a favor and go where you enjoy jourself. I am here for my pleasure and actually learn a lot here. I have interesting success stories as a result of this but would never tell you about them here.

sullster

[quote]Originally posted by Amos:
<strong> I am here, because religion troubles me so much. How many places can I vent? This is the secular web is it not? There are a lot more like me around here than you.
Actually Amos, if I am offended by anything you write, that is my problem and not yours. I can take it and besides you personally do not offend me at all. It is people like you that make this web site interesting.
I am offended by the irrationality of all religions and not the advocates, usually. Kind of like your catholic doctrine of separating the sin from the sinner.
Don't worry about me Amos, I am a big boy and can take the heat.