Books Outside the Bible

[BreadOfLife]

I have studied forces 57 years.
Had tons of debates on theology and while a Councilman, Mayor and State Arbitrator.
Far more experience in study than you.
As far as being listed first, someone has to be. That does not give them an elevated position.

What list? Haven't seen one.

I stand by what I said.
As I have said in general most forms are dying. Rapture Ready and Christianforums have merged with others and are half or more the size of what they used to be.
Biblically, the only Bishops are in the local churches. No denominations with hierarchies.
Kai distinguishes individuals.
You can also refer to a group such as the committee, council, etc. A singular group of plural composition.

All you're doing is quoting catholic theologians.
Did Jesus Speak Greek?

Oh REALLY??
"Catholic" theologians??

Well - here are quotes from some highly-respected PROTESTANT theologians from different denominations who ALL AGREE that Peter is the "ROCK" of Matt. 16:18. They ALSO agree oo the ARAMAIC language the Jesus spoke . . .

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Trevor G. Jalland, PhD (Anglican)
“The solemn words…proclaim in effect that the eponym now bestowed upon Simon is no mere nickname like Boanerges (son of thunder), ‘Petra’ (Kepha) literally denotes the apostle himself as ‘Rock”, and it is on Peter as on rock that the foundations of the new ekklesia, described in the metaphor of a building, are to be laid. Against that building so erected, in virtue of the immovable nature of the substance on which its foundations rest, neither the forces of evil nor of death can ultimately prevail.” (Jalland, Trevor G., The Church and the Papacy, London: SPCK, 1946, page 55)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock (cont'd.)

Ivor H. Jones (Methodist)
“…in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old…The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death…They are God’s people, the church…as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization…This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78


JPK page 18
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock (cont'd.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock (cont'd.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

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, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37


So much for YOUR charge about "Catholic" theologians . . .

 

[Marymog]

I believe you missed my sarcasm in reference to Martin Luther.

I guess I did.....I suspect I didn't know it was sarcasm since your response to me was "He made mention that salvation is not by works." instead of letting me know up front you were being sarcastic.

It seemed to me you were doubling down.....;)

Mary

 

[Prayer Warrior]

First of all – it’s painfully evident that you don’t understand how debates work.

It doesn’t matter how many denials you post – they are NOT evidence. Without some actual Scriptural, historical and linguistic proof for your claims – your argument is DEAD on arrival. This is the case with EVERYTHING you just posted – which I will no obliterate, point by point . . .

In Matt. 16:18, Jesus told Simon “And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

BOTH instances of “ROCK” apply to Simon Peter because Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek – He spoke ARAMAIC. In Aramaic, there is only ONE word for Rock and that is “Kepha”. In the Greek – John HAD to call Simon “Petros” because he is a MAN – and “Petra” is a FEMININE noun.

What Jesus actually said was:
“And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

This is why St. Peter is referred to as “Cephas” in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.
Jesus clearly appointed St. Peter as earthly head of the Church and Chief Apostle here in Matthew’s Gospel as well as Luke 22:31-32, where he told Peter that he prayed for him ALONE to strengthen the other Apostles in his absence.

In John 21:15-19, Jesus confronts Peter 3 times, which mirrors the 3 times Peter denied Him. However, Jesus not only asks Peter of he loves Him – He tells Peter 3 times to feed His lambs, tend his sheep and to feed His sheep. Jesus doesn’t give this instruction to any other Apostle.

You anti-Catholics believe Peter is NOT the Rock but that the Rock refers to his confession of faith. This violates the hermeneutical principle known as the “Granville Sharp’s Rule”, which states:

`When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.'" (A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, p. 147)

MOST anti-Catholics adhere to this Protestant hermeneutical rule – EXCEPT in the case of Matt. 16:18.
Gee – I wonder WHY that is . . .

Regarding your asinine claim that Jesus was talking to ALL the Apostles and not just Peter – even a 2nd grader can see that he was speaking ONLY to Peter:

Matt. 16:15-18
15 He said to THEM (plural), “But who do YOU (plural) say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to HIM (singular) in reply, “Blessed are YOU (singular), Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU (singular), but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to YOU (singular), YOU (singular) are Peter (singular), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give YOU (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Couldn’t be ANY CLEARER that from verses 16-18, Jesus is talking to Peter – and Peter ALONE.

As for Acts 1:20 – this is in reference to Judas’s OFFICE of Bishop (Episkopoi).
It shows that it was a SUCCESSIVE office.

As to your final moronic claim that there is “not a single reference or deferral to Peter in all the bible” – this is complete hogwash, as I have already listed SEVERAL.

Here’s ONE more:
In Matt. 10:2 – Peter is listed as the FIRST Apostle (Protos) – even though he was NOT the first Apostle chosen.
Gee – I WONDER why that is . . .

You LOSE because you refuse to do your homework.
It’s no WONDER your forum is dying . . .

Your assertion than Jesus was speaking Aramaic in the Gospel of Matthew has been debated by scholars. You cannot rule out the possibility that He was speaking Greek. So, your whole interpretation (I mean, the Catholic Church's interpretation) may not have any merit at all. Have you ever considered this possibility?
.

 

[CoreIssue]

Quite a list of Liberals there, Mary!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock (cont'd.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

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, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37


So much for YOUR charge about "Catholic" theologians . . .

They MAY have it right if Jesus was speaking Aramaic, but as I said in another post, some scholars have not ruled out the possibility that He was speaking Greek!

 

[BreadOfLife]

The brainwashing of Muslims or others is always the same. This is the evil of man created religion. There is NEVER any love or gentleness in their Roman gestapo doctrine. Wolves cloaked in colorful robes.

There is nothing in this religion's doctrine of love. Only lifeless works. The spirit behind the replies of this cult is viscious as we see here. Spewing self righteousness and venom.

No - I simply have a ZERO Tolerance policy for LIES.
YOU keep posting them - and I'LL keep exposing you - just like Jesus repeatedly exposed the lies of the Pharisees . . .

The very first catholic and Jesus' reply.

While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."
Luke 11:27‭-‬28 NASB

Did not God place this for a reason? Yes as a warning against this dangerous cult.

And this simply highlights your Scriptural ignorance.

Jesus wasn't rebuking the woman. He was merely pointing to the obedience that His MOTHER showed to God.
If anything - this was a compliment to His mother - NOT a rebuke of the woman . . .

 

[Marymog]

You are a rare breed, deceived, but unique.

Hmmmmm.....if someone disagrees with what YOU believe then they are deceived?

Do you know anyone that agrees with EVERYTHING you believe?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hagner MAY have it right if Jesus was speaking Aramaic, but as I said in another post, some scholars have not ruled out the possibility that He was speaking Greek!

He wasn't speaking Greek.
There are too many instances of Aramaic in the Gospels to try to pass off the myth that He spoke Greek:

- Talitha koum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
- Ephphatha meaning “Be opened.” (Mark 7:34)
- Abba meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36)
- Raca meaning “fool” (Matthew 5:22)

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Quite a list of Liberals there, Mary!

There are plenty of liberal Protestant theologians. You really do have to consider the source.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

He wasn't speaking Greek.
There are too many instances of Aramaic in the Gospels to try to pass off the myth that He spoke Greek:

- Talitha koum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
- Ephphatha meaning “Be opened.” (Mark 7:34)
- Abba meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36)
- Raca meaning “fool” (Matthew 5:22)

.
I didn't say that Greek was the only language Jesus spoke. I'm sure He spoke Hebrew and Aramaic as well. But He could have been speaking Greek and used the two Greek words for rock. You don't know for sure how it was! Your dogmatic tone is getting old.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have studied forces 57 years.

Had tons of debates on theology and while a Councilman, Mayor and State Arbitrator.

Far more experience in study than you.

Then WHY are you so inept at debating here??

A thousand opinions and short hit-and-run posts don't amount to ONE shred of evidence.

 

[CoreIssue]

Then WHY are you so inept at debating here??

A thousand opinions and short hit-and-run posts don't amount to ONE shred of evidence.

If you haven't figured out yet your diversions and attacks don't work.

 

[BreadOfLife]

.
I didn't say that Greek was the only language Jesus spoke. I'm sure He spoke Hebrew and Aramaic as well. But He could have been speaking Greek and used the two Greek words for rock. You don't know for sure how it was! Your dogmatic tone is getting old.
.

Ahhhh – but we KNOW that Matthew was originally written TO the Hebrew IN Hebrew and NOT Greek. It was later translated to Greek for a more general audience.

Besides – I already pointed out the fact – as do MANY educated scholars – that Petra is a feminine noun and would HARDLY be used to describe a man. “You are Petra” would be akin to calling him “Patricia” instead of the masculine “Peter”.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you haven't figured out yet your diversions and attacks don't work.

And neither do YOUR non-responses . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Quite a list of Liberals there, Mary!

There are plenty of liberal Protestant theologians. You really do have to consider the source.

Soooooo - WHICH ones would you accept??

You guys are running OUT of ammunition . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

The Language of the Gospel

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Ahhhh – but we KNOW that Matthew was originally written TO the Hebrew IN Hebrew and NOT Greek. It was later translated to Greek for a more general audience.

Besides – I already pointed out the fact – as do MANY educated scholars – that Petra is a feminine noun and would HARDLY be used to describe a man. “You are Petra” would be akin to calling him “Patricia” instead of the masculine “Peter”.

So many educated scholars--you mean the ones who agree with your interpretation (uh, I mean, the Catholic Church's).

Here's an educated scholar that disagrees with you--Dr. Thomas McCall, who holds a Th.M. in Old Testament studies and a Th.D. in Semitic languages and Old Testament.

The oldest known manuscripts of Matthew and Mark are in Greek. According to recent scholarship, Greek fragments of these two Gospels have been verified as dating from as early as the 60s A.D. Some scholars have argued that these Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. If that is the case, no extant copies or fragments of the Aramaic text have been found. The only evidence we have is that the original text of Matthew and Mark was in Greek.
​

I'm sure I could find an impressive list like you did, but then I don't know of any Protestant sites that have that information all laid out for me. I'll have to see if I can find one....