BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,592
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And I've explaine this to you on this very thread about TWELVE times.The originating seminal issue has still not been addressed.
Why did Matthew not, in the Greek, render Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petros", which would have reflected Aramaic's singular rendering?
But Matthew didn't. He rendered the Greek as "Petros/Petra".
He rendered it thus because the Holy Spirit inspired him to clearly highlight the distinction between Peter the pebble; and Christ the Rock on Whom His Church is built.
Every recognized historical Greek manuscript of Matthew of which I'm aware renders Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petra".
That includes the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican library.
Which demolishes the RC fallacies of Peter as the rock of the church, Peter as the first pope, apostolic succession, et al.
The fact that you refuse to accept the language barrier between Aramaic and Greek is due you your own spiritual prde because it means that you woul have to AGREE with the Catholic peron. And that is unthinkable to you . . .
Not eeven a child needs to have this exaplined a Ddozen times - but I'll explain it ONE more time for YOU:
a. The GREEK of Matt. 16:18 uses the terms "Petros" and "Petra".
However - Jesus spoke ARAMAIC, not Greek.
b. Sknce Matthew is in Greek - the ONLY option for his was to use "Petros" because is is a MASCULINE noun.
He could NOT call him "Petra" because it is a FEMININE noun, so it would be akin to calling him "Patriacia".
STILL with me?
Good - let's move on . . .
Paul, using a Greek transliteration for the Aramaic word thatJesus used, "Kepha" refers to Peter as "CEPHAS" in his letters.
So, the question for YOU is:
WHY didn't Paul call him "Petros"??
WHY did he make up the name "Cephas" instead?