Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas/Peter...

2»

Comments

  • #32
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    It should be noted, petros refers to a small stone, while Petra according to strong refers to a large mass of rock.

    Jesus referred to Peter as a stone while He Himself is the Rock on which the Church is built.
    You can't build much on a small stone.

    Today, Peter would probably be called brick. You can build a church with bricks. Or stones.


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 133 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I wouldn't dismiss the potential of a small stone, when you consider what you can accomplish armed with nothing but a mustard seed!

    More seriously, the petra/petros distinction isn't between a big rock and a small one. Petra is rock or stone, the substance. It can refer to rock or stone as an abstract concept, or to a large expanse of undifferentiated rock or stone, e.g. a stony desert, a rocky mountain ridge, a rock formation. Petros is an individual rock or stone, of any size, from pebble to boulder.

    What can we deduce from the fact that Jesus supposedly gave Simon the new name of Petros rather than Petra? Nothing; this was a choice made by the those who put this story into Greek. Their choice may have been motivated by nothing more than the fact that "Petra" was a (gramatically) feminine noun, and therefore not apt for a man's name. Or it could emphasise Simon's uniqueness, his distinction from others; he's not just rock, he's this rock.

    But, either way, it's their choice, not that of Jesus. The name Jesus assigned to Simon was the Aramaic Kepha. SFAIK the rock/a rock distinction is not relevant to the Aramaic word; it can refer to either.
    This was a choice made by the writers under the inspiration of the Spirit. I see elsewhere you putting the words of the old Testament down to what was going on among the pagans, it seemed at the expense of God interfering in the affairs of mankind.

    Do you belive the Bible to be the inspired word of God or was it just a good idea at the time.?

    Jesus didn't call Peter a foundational rock which is important as we see a certain grouping doing that very thing and establishing a religion based on this verse.


  • #34
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    This was a choice made by the writers under the inspiration of the Spirit.

    That's quite a doctrine to be extracting from slim scriptural picking. What 'God breathe' means is open to some question.


    Do you belive the Bible to be the inspired word of God or was it just a good idea at the time.?

    What does inspired mean? God put words in their mouths? God inspired them to write? God made sure there was nothing said as fact that wasn't a fact?


  • #35
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,489 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    This was a choice made by the writers under the inspiration of the Spirit.
    Of course. Nevertheless it's not something we should attribute to Jesus.
    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    I see elsewhere you putting the words of the old Testament down to what was going on among the pagans, it seemed at the expense of God interfering in the affairs of mankind.
    I've no idea what you are referring to here, but your interpretation of my position is not accurate.
    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    Do you belive the Bible to be the inspired word of God or was it just a good idea at the time.?
    Both the inspired word of God and a good idea. I'm puzzled as to how you think if it's one of these things, it's not also the other.
    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    Jesus didn't call Peter a foundational rock which is important as we see a certain grouping doing that very thing and establishing a religion based on this verse.
    I think you're reading too much into the petros/petra distinction; neither word means "foundational rock". Elsewhere, when foundation stones are mentioned (Mt 21:42, quoting Ps 118), the Evangelist uses an entirely different term.

    Besides, Jesus uses both words in Mt 16:18, and there's nothing in the text - the Spirit-inspired text, let me remind you - to suggest that one refers to Peter and the other to Jesus or indeed to anyone or anything other than Peter; that strikes me as a very strained reading, proceeding from an ecclesiological preconception which precludes a plain reading of the text.


Advertisement