The Aramaic Petros Peter was mistaken since the early church as being a Greek word. - Page 2

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,395
    Rep Power
    5

    Default The Aramaic Petros Peter was mistaken since the early church as being a Greek word.



    Over a million people have watched this video and been astonished. Petros Peter is not a Greek Name, or wasn't in the days of Jesus.

    Lets Roll to the beginning:

    In his book "Peter" Professor Oscar Cullmann joined others suggesting there is an Aramaic "Petros" פטרוס that caused preference for the Greek "Petros" for Peter's name, perhaps connected to פטר PaTaR {Strong's 6362) from which פֶּטֶר PeTeR {6363} meaning "firstborn" is derived. (PETER, Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1953, p. 19. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol VI, p. 101 Footnote 8. Strack and Billerbeck (Kommentar zum Neun Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922, Vol. I . p.530), Gustav Dalman (Aramaischneuhebraisches Worterbuch, 1901).

    The theory PETROS is only a Greek translation of the Aramaic word "Kepha" became impossible when John himself translated "Kepha" as "Cephas" in John 1:42 explaining it denotes a petros/stone in Greek. In other words, Jesus did not say "thou shalt be called petros," He predicted Peter who already was Petros, would be called "Cephas" which John explains, denotes a "kepha petros stone." Peter was already known as "Petros/Peter" before he met Jesus (Mt. 4:18; Jn. 1:40).

    Consistently, this Aramaic Petros Peter name is found in the Pe****ta and other early church Aramaic manuscripts. (Ac. 1:13; 1 Pt. 1:1; 2 Pt; Old Syriac Jn. 1:42; The Three Curetonian Epistles; Saint Ephraim's Refutations; Colophons). Therefore, "Petros פטרוס Peter" is NOT Greek, it is Aramaic and it is an accident of transliteration that it is spelled precisely like "stone/petros" in Greek.

    Peter's Aramaic name Petros פטרוס is a homonym of πέτρος when transliterated into Greek just like the Hebrew BATH (01324 בַּת 1 Ki 7:26, 38 &c.) and Aramaic BATH (01325 בַּת Ezra 7:22) when these are transliterated into Greek: βάτος (943, Lk. 16:6); βάτος (942, Mk 12:26; Lk 6:44; 20:37).

    Professor Markus Bockmuehl comments:

    "But it remains desirable to ask what Jewish dimensions, if any, this name is likely to have had. And is it conceivable that even the Greek name could have featured in a Hebrew or Aramaic source? It is after all only John 1:42 which, on a certain reading, might be taken to suggest that ‘Peter’ is a secondary translation of an existing name K¯efa. It is instructive to note, however, that two verses earlier the evangelist seems to undermine even this conventional assumption of the priority of ‘Cephas’ by referring casually to ‘Simon Peter’ (1:40). Taken at face value, the text implies that it is this Simon, nicknamed Petros, who from now on ‘shall be called Cephas’. All four gospels, indeed, allow for the possibility that Matthew 16 merely affirms and interprets in Aramaic an existing Greek nickname that Peter had all along."- (Simon Peter’s Name In Jewish Sources, Journal Of Jewish Studies, Vol. Lv, No. 1, Spring 2004, p. 71)

    The 13th Century Sefer Nitsahon calls Peter "petar chamor", "firstborn ass" making a pun on his Aramaic name PETROS.

    NT evidence confirming Peter's Aramaic name Petros פטרוס means "firstborn" is found in Mt 16:18 which the video exposits and:
    πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2)
    "First Simon the one called Firstborn" (Compare Billerbeck op. cit.)

    Because the Jews were driven out of the Holy Land, that unique Palestinian Aramaic Christ and His apostles spoke was lost and Greek Speaking Christians confused Peter's Aramaic name "petros" as being the Greek "petros/stone". That error progressively deflected from the most ancient and correct exegesis--- that Jesus built His church upon the specific point of faith Peter confessed, to sectarian or improbable interpretations.

    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (Jn. 20:31-21:1 KJV)

    Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Rev. 3:20 KJV)

    ***I misspoke in frames 20:42-52, scholars do NOT connect the winds rains etc with darkness, they are consistently wrong in the work cited.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    48
    Posts
    15,728
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post
    That is odd, perhaps few viewers have decided whether to like or not?

    Perhaps many watch through third party sites, likes dislikes disabled.

    Some like myself, would refrain from liking or disliking, not wanting to be listed as liking someone who may say horrible things in other videos.

    Perhaps your comment implies the answer, after a few minutes folks just leave and don't bother with likes and dislikes.

    I will simplify the message, greatly in the next video. Use more visuals, make it shorter.

    Your last question could take a book to answer. Don't worry, I won't. Non-scholars don't realize the damage departing from the most ancient interpretation of this text, has caused. The rise of the "Petrine party hypothesis" and its supposed success at corrupting the Gospel record, has caused many scholars to lose their faith in the integrity of the scriptures. And it shows in their works.

    Not overtly, faithless commentary has no market. They hide their disrespect for God's word, pretending or fooling themselves they still believe.

    More often than not their commentary only insinuates doubt about the text, and often they misdirect away from God's word to a false construct of their, or someone else' making. Its not uncommon to see apocryphal works cited as if these offer alternative explanations from which the reader can choose.

    They are like wolves in sheep's clothing, feeding on the sheep.

    One of their own partially exposed them, saying:


    "It ought also to be clear that most Protestant exegetes who refer πέτρα to Peter do so under the assumption that the passage is inauthentic, i.e., that it is either a later interpolation by some Christian hand or more precisely a later creation by a Petrine party, or in the polemic against or at least in reaction to Paul."-Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter And The Rock (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1989), pp. 3-4.



    So the Peter is the Rock theory is in effect, a conspiracy of the faithless, people who no longer believe the scriptures are the inerrant Word of God.

    And their agreement with the modern day version of the Petrine party has the effect of hiding God's elegantly simple path to salvation by believing in the PETRA of God, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God.

    Believe and Confess that publicly and one is saved.


    9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
    11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. (Rom. 10:9-11 Douay Rheims)

    In the church fathers we find the the original interpretation of the Mt. 16:18 text even though they had lost knowledge of the Aramaic Petros:

    On the specific point of faith Peter confessed, Christ builds His church.

    Hence we read:

    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (Jn. 20:31 KJV)

    One cannot find great ceremony and rite, big cathedrals, popes etc, in the pages of the NT. Why? They are not necessary for salvation, they came much later, human additions to the divine simplicity that unfortunately deflect from God's way of salvation.

    we are to do as Peter did, confess the divine revelation Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, publicly, believing it in our hearts, and then we are saved. The door into the kingdom of God opens.

    That specific point of the faith, is the key to eternal life, divine bliss.

    Not any pope or church, orthodox, protestant or catholic. They are irrelevant to salvation, Christ saved us all by Himself, when we believe and confess Him publicly, before men. Then we are confessed before God, in heavenly placers..
    Ya know Alfred, you're starting to win me over. Not so much with the Janus interpretation. That's still above my head, I must confess. But what you said PLAINLY, that all we have to do is confess publicly that Jesus is the Christ. Now, let's take it a step further. Instead of using Greek words (like "Christ") and Latin names (like "Jesus") shouldn't we just go back to the original Aramaic and Hebrew?

    Shouldn't we just confess that Yeshua (transliterated directly from Hebrew to English the name is Joshua) is the Messiah? And cut out the extra steps in between?

    "From the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshu'a) meaning "YAHWEH is salvation". As told in the Old Testament, Joshua was a companion of Moses. ... The name Jesus comes from a Greek translation of the Aramaic short form יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshu'a), which was the real name of 'Jesus'." https://www.behindthename.com/name/joshua
    Last edited by Christian; February 13th, 2018 at 8:03 pm.
    “It is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them.” Sigmund Freud

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    42,678
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    That was a different guy.
    Meh. All these crazies lately seem to run together into the same thing.
    Last edited by Koushi Shinigami; February 14th, 2018 at 5:19 am.
    .

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,395
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    Ya know Alfred, you're starting to win me over. Not so much with the Janus interpretation. That's still above my head, I must confess. But what you said PLAINLY, that all we have to do is confess publicly that Jesus is the Christ. Now, let's take it a step further. Instead of using Greek words (like "Christ") and Latin names (like "Jesus") shouldn't we just go back to the original Aramaic and Hebrew?

    Shouldn't we just confess that Yeshua (transliterated directly from Hebrew to English the name is Joshua) is the Messiah? And cut out the extra steps in between?

    "From the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshu'a) meaning "YAHWEH is salvation". As told in the Old Testament, Joshua was a companion of Moses. ... The name Jesus comes from a Greek translation of the Aramaic short form יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshu'a), which was the real name of 'Jesus'." https://www.behindthename.com/name/joshua
    Your premise God won't save if Aramaic isn't used? If it isn't, then your objection is specious. Suppose a child mispronounces Jesus' name, and it doesn't exist in any language, but his child's heart is crying out to the real Jesus Christ.

    Would God reject it?

    I think not. And besides, God wrote the NT in Greek, OT in Hebrew and Aramaic.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    48
    Posts
    15,728
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post
    Your premise God won't save if Aramaic isn't used? If it isn't, then your objection is specious. Suppose a child mispronounces Jesus' name, and it doesn't exist in any language, but his child's heart is crying out to the real Jesus Christ.

    Would God reject it?

    I think not. And besides, God wrote the NT in Greek, OT in Hebrew and Aramaic.
    So, just so we are clear here. You have no problem with the Greek.
    If this is true, one wonders why you spent so much time trying to "prove" Peter's name (Petros) was Aramaic and NOT Greek (even though it is). Much ado about nothing.

    BTW, "God" did NOT write the NT. Men did (inspired by the Holy Spirit). Being inspired or carried along (as the Greek says) is not the same thing as actually sitting down and putting pen to paper. These men were not automaton robots.
    Last edited by Christian; February 14th, 2018 at 8:08 am.
    “It is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them.” Sigmund Freud

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    48
    Posts
    15,728
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post

    The 13th Century Sefer Nitsahon calls Peter "petar chamor", "firstborn ass" making a pun on his Aramaic name PETROS.

    NT evidence confirming Peter's Aramaic name Petros פטרוס means "firstborn" is found in Mt 16:18 which the video exposits and:
    πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2)
    "First Simon the one called Firstborn" (Compare Billerbeck op. cit.)

    Because the Jews were driven out of the Holy Land, that unique Palestinian Aramaic Christ and His apostles spoke was lost and Greek Speaking Christians confused Peter's Aramaic name "petros" as being the Greek "petros/stone". That error progressively deflected from the most ancient and correct exegesis--- that Jesus built His church upon the specific point of faith Peter confessed, to sectarian or improbable interpretations.
    I find no evidence that what you say is true. As a matter of fact, this has been pointed out to you before. "The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

    Even your own email from Professor Charlesworth affirms this:

    The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.
    http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/...?topic=29485.0

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian
    But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (Jn. 20:31-21:1 KJV)
    One has to wonder if you can have "life through his name" if you get his name wrong. You want to claim Peter's name is wrongly assumed to be of Greek origin (and not Aramaic origin) and yet you make a similar mistake in using the Latinized name "Jesus" instead of the proven Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua (which transliterated into English is Joshua).

    The full Hebrew name is Yehoshua which means YHWH is salvation. That makes perfect sense. However, the Latin Iesus or "Jesus" has no such meaning. Lest you forget, in ancient Hebrew culture, names have meanings and the meaning of a name is very important. Apparently, not so much today, which is why (I suspect) people miss the actual meaning of the Messiah's name.
    “It is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them.” Sigmund Freud

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,395
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    I find no evidence that what you say is true. As a matter of fact, this has been pointed out to you before. "The Aramaic for firstborn is "b'khur," which has several cognates in the Semitica languages. PeTros doesn't come up on CAL or in Payne Smyth, and from its structure stands out as a loan word, if it existed: a theoretical origin would be Greek Protos "first."

    Even your own email from Professor Charlesworth affirms this:

    The name seems quite possible, but as I stressed all the time, there is no connection with the Apostle Peter.
    http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/...?topic=29485.0


    One has to wonder if you can have "life through his name" if you get his name wrong. You want to claim Peter's name is wrongly assumed to be of Greek origin (and not Aramaic origin) and yet you make a similar mistake in using the Latinized name "Jesus" instead of the proven Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua (which transliterated into English is Joshua).

    The full Hebrew name is Yehoshua which means YHWH is salvation. That makes perfect sense. However, the Latin Iesus or "Jesus" has no such meaning. Lest you forget, in ancient Hebrew culture, names have meanings and the meaning of a name is very important. Apparently, not so much today, which is why (I suspect) people miss the actual meaning of the Messiah's name.

    Yes, more than one word means firstborn. Hebrew is the same:


    FIRSTBORN


    1060 bᵉkôwr (101), firstborn
    1062 bᵉkôwrâh (1), state of, rights of first born
    1067 bᵉkı̂yrâh (6), first born, eldest daughter
    1069 bâkar (1), bear the first born
    6363 peṭer (4), firstling, first born


    Strong, J. (1997). New Strong’s guide to Bible words (electronic ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


    As for Professor Charlesworth, you are interpreting his "possible" to mean impossible, and overlooked Dalman, Billerbeck and Cullmann.

    Worse, you ignored Mat. 10:2

    πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2)
    "First Simon the one called Firstborn" (Compare Billerbeck op. cit.)

    πρῶτος means first in order. As it is NOT a numbering system, no one is said to be second or third etc.,, it means what it says, Simon is "first".

    Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ, that is why he is listed first in all the apostolic lists.


    How could so many lexicons get it wrong? Confirmation bias. Once the mistake was made, it was replicated till everyone is repeating the same elementary mistake made in the early centuries, by the Greek speaking church when they came upon the Aramaic PETROS which in Greek, is spelled precisely like the Greek word PETROS stone.

    That fits the NT usage of PETROS, only in John 1:42 does it mean stone.

    In the Janus Parallelism of Christ in Mt 16:18 (where it has BOTH Aramaic and Greek meanings) and in Mark 3:16 referring to that event, which when yoked with the phenomenon of the name's appearances in Mark ---prior to the MT 16:18 event it hardly appears, afterward many times, it likely carries the hybrid meaning Christ gave it in Mat. 16:18, meaning both firstborn and kepha stone, being it appears so often AFTER the event and not before.

    All the other times its Peter's Aramaic name meaning "first" or "firstborn". (Mt. 10:2), definitely NOT cephas petros stone, a common noun.

    Confirming this is the presence of the Aramaic PETROS in the Pe****ta and other texts. Scholars always comment how amazing it is a GREEK word be in an Aramaic document.

    However, that is their cognitive dissonance showing. Its an Aramaic word in an Aramaic document.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,395
    Rep Power
    5

    Default Gist of new video

    Some claim Jesus gave Simon the name PetrosPeter when He predicted Simon would becalled Kepha Cephas inJohn 1:42. But if that is true, why does the Gospel of Matthew show Simon wasalready called Petros Peter beforehe met Jesus?

    18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simoncalled Peter (Petros), and Andrew hisbrother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
    19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers ofmen. (Matt. 4:18-19 KJV)

    Confirming this, Andrew is called "SimonPeter's brother" before John 1:42
    40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's (4074 Πέτρος Petros) brother.
    41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, Wehave found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
    42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said,Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is byinterpretation, A stone (4074 Πέτρος Petros). (Jn. 1:40-42 KJV)




    HOW CREDIBLE AM I?

    Depends on your God given right to choose.Amateur Archaeologists who have uncovered extraordinary finds overturningestablished beliefs in their day, aren't credible if you prefer professionalcredentialed archaeologists who work the peer review circuit where confirmationbias reigns supreme. But if you judge credible the man who spends his own timeand money to learn and work the dig and who then freely shares his findingswith the world, then you will find me credible. I've been a born againChristian Bible student over 35 years and confess the Bible is the inerrantWord of God and it is my authority. What I have discovered is in its pages, butveiled because someone in the very beginning made a simple mistake, andeverything built upon that error has been skewed ever since. They mistook theAramaic Petros as being a Greek word.

    PATHOS:

    Why does it matter if we discover the apostlePeter was the firstborn of the gospel of Christ's identity, that He is theChrist, the Son of the living God? Because then Romans 10:9-11 which wasderived the Peter's confessing that specific point of truth, is illustrated forus. Not only do we learn all who confess Christ publicly are saved, we see allwho later become faithless as Peter did when he denied Christ thrice areultimately saved by God's grace, just as Peter was. That is eternal security ofthe believer. Learning that Peter confessed the Petra Jesus built His churchupon, that he then became the first petros/kepha/lithos life giving stonecommunicating the grace of God, and all the church follows Peter in thiscapacity, reveals the channel of God grace to the world.

    Once one knows precisely what words and actionsconstitute the knowledge called keys of the kingdom that open the door into Godheavenly grace and eternal life, then you too can lead family and friendsdirectly into the presence of God Himself in the heavenlies. Truly, that is awonderful thing. For all eternity these will be thanking you.

    LOGOS

    Regarding this Professor Markus Bockmuehlobserves:

    Petros as a Jewish Name?
    But it remains desirable to ask what Jewish dimensions, if any, this name is
    likely to have had.86 And is it conceivable thateven the Greek name could have
    featured in a Hebrew or Aramaic source? It isafter all only John 1:42 which,
    on a certain reading, might be taken to suggestthat ‘Peter’ is a secondary
    translation of an existing name Kēfa̛. It is instructive to note, however, that
    two verses earlier the evangelist seems toundermine even this conventional
    assumption of the priority of ‘Cephas’ byreferring casually to ‘Simon Peter’
    (1:40). Taken at face value, the text impliesthat it is this Simon, nicknamed
    Petros, who from now on ‘shall be called Cephas’. All four gospels,indeed,
    allow for the possibility that Matthew 16 merelyaffirms and interprets in Aramaic
    an existing Greek nickname that Peter had allalong...See Mark 3:16; Matt. 4:18; Luke 5:8; John 1:40, 42."-

    (Simon Peter’s Name In Jewish Sources, Journal OfJewish Studies, Vol. Lv, No. 1, Spring 2004, p. 71)


    It is the contention of this video the Professoris half right, Petros is a Jewish name Simon had before he met Jesusbut he is wrong to suppose its Greek. On the contrary, Simon has an Aramaicnickname
    פטרוס that is a homonym of the Greek Nickname πέτρος.When transliterated into Greek its spelled precisely like Petros.

    "That there was in Aramaic a proper namePetros (H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922 ff., I, 530) which perhaps meant “firstborn”(J. Levy, Neuhebräischesund chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 1876 f., new imp. 1924, sub voce, פֶּטֶר; Dalman Wört. G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Wörterbuch, 1901, subvoce) might have influenced thepreference for Petros, but this is by no means certain." -O.Cullmann, TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament, VI,101 Footnote 8; Grand Rapids, MI 1968: Eerdmans.

    Is it possible an Aramaic Word be transliteratedinto Greek so its spelled precisely like another Greek word? Yes, that isprecisely what happened to the Hebrew BATH (01324 בַּת 1 Ki 7:26, 38 &c.) and the Aramaic BATH(01325 בַּת Ezra 7:22), when transliterated into Greek these are spelled thesame: βάτος (943, Lk. 16:6); βάτος (942, Mk 12:26; Lk 6:44; 20:37).


    REBUTTAL

    Just as "confirmation bias" led to theuniversal belief the earth was flat, so it led to the universal belief thetransliterated Aramaic PETROS is the Greek word for "stone".

    Note the uncertainty and imprecision the erroris founded on:


    "Fr. the beginning it was prob. thought ofas the Gk. equivalent of the Aram. כֵּיפָא=Κηφᾶς: J 1:42; cf. Mt16:18"- AGreek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 654

    The "Rosetta Stone" does not say this,its a hastygeneralization fallacy. Jesuspredicted Simon would one day be called כֵּיפָא (kepha) and John translatesthat into Greek as Κηφᾶς (Cephas), so the Greek translation of Aramaic כֵּיפָאis Kηφᾶς, NOT πέτρος (petros)

    Petros according to Johns 1:42, is also a common nounlike kepha and it explains what kepha denotes in Greek, apetros/rock.

    Jesus did NOT call Simon "Κηφᾶς/Cephas"in Matthew 16:18, he surnamed him πέτρος andaccording to Mark it also was a common noun when this happened:

    16 And Simon he surnamed (2007 ἐπιτίθημι epitithemi) Peter (πέτρος petros);
    17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed (2007 ἐπιτίθημι epitithemi) them Boanerges (βοανηργές boanerges), which is, The sons of thunder: (Mk. 3:16-17 KJV)

    Just as "the sons of thunder" is NOT aname of a person, so also 'petros/stone' is not a name.

    Mark says Jesus is laying upon them (2007 ἐπιτίθημι epitithemi) these meanings, He is not giving themproper names.


    Therefore, the theory Petros is a Greek translation of Kepha is a generalizationfallacy, precisely what ispredicted when the theorists are plagued with cognitive dissonance.


    When we allow all these precise details exist,then its clear the Aramaic Proper Noun Petros which transliterated into Greekis spelled just like petros/stone, is being used by Jesus in a JanusParallelism in Mt. 16:18. Both meanings are being used. Looking back, theAramaic meaning "firstborn" is gained reality when Simon confessedthe specific point of faith that Paul says brings on the New Birth (Rom.10:9-11), and pivoting forward the common noun meaning kepha/petros/lithos communicates Simon is nowCephas/kepha having drank of the spiritual drink of life flowing from themassive PETRA Rock that is Christ, and it gave him eternal life and so is nowCephas indeed.
    Last edited by BornAgainChristian; February 15th, 2018 at 2:10 pm.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    48
    Posts
    15,728
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BornAgainChristian View Post
    Yes, more than one word means firstborn. Hebrew is the same:


    FIRSTBORN


    1060 bᵉkôwr (101), firstborn
    1062 bᵉkôwrâh (1), state of, rights of first born
    1067 bᵉkı̂yrâh (6), first born, eldest daughter
    1069 bâkar (1), bear the first born
    6363 peṭer (4), firstling, first born


    Strong, J. (1997). New Strong’s guide to Bible words (electronic ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


    As for Professor Charlesworth, you are interpreting his "possible" to mean impossible, and overlooked Dalman, Billerbeck and Cullmann.

    Worse, you ignored Mat. 10:2

    πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος (Matt. 10:2)
    "First Simon the one called Firstborn" (Compare Billerbeck op. cit.)

    πρῶτος means first in order. As it is NOT a numbering system, no one is said to be second or third etc.,, it means what it says, Simon is "first".

    Firstborn of the Gospel of Christ, that is why he is listed first in all the apostolic lists.


    How could so many lexicons get it wrong? Confirmation bias. Once the mistake was made, it was replicated till everyone is repeating the same elementary mistake made in the early centuries, by the Greek speaking church when they came upon the Aramaic PETROS which in Greek, is spelled precisely like the Greek word PETROS stone.

    That fits the NT usage of PETROS, only in John 1:42 does it mean stone.

    In the Janus Parallelism of Christ in Mt 16:18 (where it has BOTH Aramaic and Greek meanings) and in Mark 3:16 referring to that event, which when yoked with the phenomenon of the name's appearances in Mark ---prior to the MT 16:18 event it hardly appears, afterward many times, it likely carries the hybrid meaning Christ gave it in Mat. 16:18, meaning both firstborn and kepha stone, being it appears so often AFTER the event and not before.

    All the other times its Peter's Aramaic name meaning "first" or "firstborn". (Mt. 10:2), definitely NOT cephas petros stone, a common noun.

    Confirming this is the presence of the Aramaic PETROS in the Pe****ta and other texts. Scholars always comment how amazing it is a GREEK word be in an Aramaic document.

    However, that is their cognitive dissonance showing. Its an Aramaic word in an Aramaic document.
    You do understand that the word "firstborn" refers to preeminence. http://www.equip.org/article/how-can...-all-creation/

    So, why isn't Jesus (who is the "firstborn" from the dead, not called "Peter" (if your argument is valid)?
    “It is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them.” Sigmund Freud

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Tornado Alley
    Age
    48
    Posts
    15,728
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Hebrews 12:23 "to the assembly of the firstborn . . ." Who's assembly (or "church") is it? Peter's or Yeshua's? According to Alfred, if Peter means "firstborn" then it is the "church of Peter" which would lead one to conclude it is referring to the Roman Catholic Church since it claims Peter as their FIRST Pope!
    “It is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them.” Sigmund Freud

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,395
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    You do understand that the word "firstborn" refers to preeminence. http://www.equip.org/article/how-can...-all-creation/

    So, why isn't Jesus (who is the "firstborn" from the dead, not called "Peter" (if your argument is valid)?
    No, I do not understand that. Among that word's meanings, that is included but NOT to the exclusion of its use in the OT.

    That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth (06363 פֶּטֶר ) the matrix, and every firstling (06363 פֶּטֶר ) that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S. (Exod. 13:12 KJV)

    It would be confusion to have BOTH the lamb sacrifice that redeems the firstborn and the firstborn called PeTeR.

    13 And every firstling (06363 פֶּטֶר )of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. (Exod. 13:13 KJV)
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    7,395
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Still working on revising the entire argument, a rough draft of the beginning:

    The Aramaic name " פטרוס Peter" transliterated into Greek is "πέτρος stone". Greek speaking Christians unfamiliar with Palestinian Aramaic naturally thought it was Greek "petros" meaning "stone".

    That hasty generalization fallacy has been replicated in every lexical definition of Simon's Aramaic name (4074 Πέτρος) Petros thereafter.

    That fundamental mistake veiled the correct interpretation of the Asymmetric Janus Parallelism Jesus crafted in Matthew 16:18 where He surnamed Simon Petros and said "upon this rock (4073 πέτρα petra) I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18 KJV) .

    "Thou art Petros" (Mt. 16:18) pivots on BOTH Aramaic and Greek meanings of "petros". Jesus observes the meaning of Simon's name פטרוס Petros (06363 פֶּטֶר "Firstborn") has become actual, he has become the "First" (4413 πρῶτος protos Mt. 10:2) of the unchanging petra truth Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16 KJV). And upon that specific unchanging truth Jesus would build His church.

    Pivoting forward, because Simon drunk of the living water of the massive petra rock that is Christ (1 Co. 10:4), he now is כֵּיפָא Κηφᾶς πέτρος <em>petros</em> (3037 λίθος lithos) first "lively stone" (cp. 1 Pt. 2:5) of the royal priesthood of Christ.

    The gospel record and Paul's use of "Cephas Peter" in Galatians confirms this is precisely how the apostles interpreted Jesus' pun---when the data is not destroyed by the hasty generalization fallacies invalidating every competing interpretation that arose afterward.
    Last edited by BornAgainChristian; February 17th, 2018 at 2:21 pm.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22 KJV)

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Ps. 33:12 KJV)

  24. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •