Why would he be referred to at this point? Because Jesus is talking to him... Did you mean to ask that, what are you asking?Blitz wrote:Ah then why would Peter be referred to at this?
Do we hear Abraham's name change referred to again? Nah-uh. Is it important? Yah-huh.Blitz wrote:And if it such a big deal why do we never hear about it again?
Because there was no other choice. In Aramaic you can use Kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek it's not so simple.Blitz wrote:Even if they are synonyms, would you really refer to someone by a synonym of their name? Then you could call me trickster.
If the author of your book knows the rudimentaries of Greek, they know there are masculine, feminine and neuter nouns. Petra has a feminine ending. You can use it in Matthew 16:18 without difficulty. After that though, you have to use Petros, with a masculine ending. You couldn't use petra, because you can't give someone an opposite gender name, at least back then you couldn't.
Admittedly, that's an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic, you lose part of the wordplay. In English, you have Peter and rock, losing all of it. That's the best you can do in Greek, though.
If you mean the original doesn't remain, it's certainly true we don't have the originals of the Gospel of Matthew, as with all the Bible, as with most ancient documents however creditable.Blitz wrote:I quote Kurt Aland, a New Testament scholar, "There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the NT were originally written."
There is no Aramaic Original.
If you mean it wasn't written in Aramaic, some scholars do indeed hold that position but it's hotly contested. There's a pile of evidence against it.
Again, both Papias and Irenaeus refer to the Aramaic version in the second century.
St. Irenaeus was writing around 180, saying, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
Moving further from the time of the original gospel, sometime after 244, the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).
Ooh, me me, I do. In Aramaic the word for rock is Kepha. Being there's no difficulty with the gender or anything, what Jesus would've said is, "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I build my church."Blitz wrote:And who knows what it would say in Aramaic?
That's not what I said.Blitz wrote:That isn't quite what it says. He simply says God chose him to be the first to deliver the message, after which Paul and Barnabas carried on.
I said Peter makes a doctrinal statement, which he does:
"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
He speaks with authority on spiritual matters, precisely the unique ability the Pope has. He clarifies the actual doctrine of the matter, saying that salvation should be equally available to all without the restrictions of the old, Judaic way.
When James takes the floor, he is speaking on a very different subject. Not on doctrine, whihc Peter already instated, but in agreement with the doctrine and on how to implement the doctrine in practical terms. He makes no doctrines himself.
He did use his authority as just demonstrated.Blitz wrote:Anyway, why is it if Peter was the 'Pope' did he never use his power or refer to his power?
Why you see- um, I have no idea. I'll look into that. Thanks, looks like you're forcing me to learn something.Blitz wrote:In 1 Peter 5:1-2, he treat the elders of the church he is writing as equals not as head honcho.
Paul criticizes him on a disciplinary matter, yes, not doctrinal. Thank you for bringing this up. It's an easy mistake to make and some Catholics make it, but you need look no further than the Catechism or any authoritative Catholic source or person you like to see we believe the Pope has authority on doctrinal matters only. Peter was certainly wrong to refuse to meet with gentiles. Popes are certainly fallen human beings. They can be mistaken, at some points in history even evil, in their conduct. However, they are protected from speaking wrongly on doctrine and doctrine alone.Blitz wrote:Paul criticizes Peter, something he wouldn't do if Peter were God's divine representative on earth like in Galatians 2.
Actually, Stephen Colbert sums it up quite well at 2:30:
Quick note, obviously speaking from the seat of Peter doesn't actually mean literally sitting on the papal chair, but that's only part that's a bit poorly researched.