Next, he discusses Matthew 16:17-19. He challenges any Catholic apologist to provide an extant Aramaic manuscript, but, as he knows, there are none. In addition, he gives two reasons based on the Greek text to reject the theory. I'm no scholar, so I can't debate this, but it's not that relevant. I didn't use the theory in my opening statement. However, even though we don't know for sure in what language the first Gospel was written, we do know that the Greek of Matthew is a translation of the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, and He most likely used the word "kepha" both times. Next, ReformedApologist just claims that because Matthew uses two words for "rock," Jesus was talking about two different things, but that makes the wording awkward.
There are none. That is my point.
Then you state that you are no scholar, and cannot debate this. You then object by saying �but it is not that relevant.� What could be more relevant than going to the texts themselves in the original language in which it was written in order to determine what was being said?
You then go on to say that:
even though we don't know for sure in what language the first Gospel was written, we do know that the Greek of Matthew is a translation of the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, and He most likely used the word "kepha" both times.
Does this uncertainty include yourself when you stated, �we don't know for sure?� Do you have any support for this assertion that we do not know for sure in what language the Gospel According to Matthew was written in?
Since 1) there are no Aramaic manuscripts, 2) you say we cannot be sure about the original language the Gospel According to Matthew was written in, why do you make the positive assertion that it was most likely a translation of the Aramaic that Jesus spoke? Wouldn�t a translation of something preclude it from being the original source?
Your objection that because Matthew uses two different words for rock in 16:17-19, that it makes the wording �awkward�, because then Jesus would be talking about two different things; well that is just part of serious exegesis. Since no evidence can be mustered to demonstrate beyond all doubt that this passage is to be understood in Aramaic, I see no reason to question or doubt the Greek that Matthew used here.
You went on to say:
In my opening statement, I gave four reasons why Jesus was referring to Peter both times, and he will have to deal with those before he can claim that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession of faith.1) The Greek words "petra" and "petros" did have different meanings before the first century, but by the time Matthew wrote his Gospel, they had become synonyms. Had Matthew wanted to make the distinction between Peter and the rock, he could have used the word "lithos," which means "stone."
To which I reply:
Thou art Peter �� �� ������
Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, �Thou art the Christ.� Christ replies, �Thou art Peter.� (������ (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (Joh_1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning. In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (�Iliad,� vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (�Iliad,� xvi., 784).On this rock (��� ����� �� �����
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock ( ������ above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer (�Odyssey,� ix., 243), the rock (�����) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (�Odyssey,� ix., 484) 1.
2) In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, the words for "Peter" and "rock" were probably both "kepha," which does away with any supposed distinction in the Greek. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders it, "You are kipho, and on this kipho�" which supports the idea that Jesus, who spoke Eastern Aramaic, used "kepha" both times.
This assertion has already been dealt with in my opening statement, in my first rebuttal and in the above comments in this rebuttal.
3) Remember what I said before about the context? This is where it becomes important. Jesus was talking exclusively to Peter, and all his statements were praises and honors given to Peter. The Protestant distinction between Peter and the rock would be totally out of place in this context. This is what Protestants would have Jesus saying:"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and I will build my church on something other than you, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
This version of the statement about the rock does not fit the context, so it's obviously not what Jesus said.
���� �� ��� ���� ��� �� �� ������ ��� ��� ����� �� ����� ���������� ��� ��� ��������� ��� ����� ���� �� ������������� �����
The Church is built on the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11). He is the Corner Stone that the builders rejected (Mat. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1Pe. 2:6, 7).
An aside, but you will notice in Ephesians 2:20, that God�s household is built on the foundation of the Apostles (Plural) and the Prophets (Plural), not just on Peter, and Christ Himself is the chief corner stone; the leading stone, the one upon which everything derives its life. He the fountainhead of the Church, the only ruler and Supreme Potentate, the very stone upon which the Church is built.
4) Jesus said, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," not, "You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church." By saying "and," Jesus was connecting Peter and the rock, implying that they were the same.
This also has been dealt with in my opening statement and first rebuttal.
Mat 16:18 - (5) And I say also unto thee, That thou art (l) Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the (m) gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(5) That is true faith, which confesses Christ, the virtue of which is invincible.
(l) Christ spoke in the Syrian tongue, and therefore did not use this discourse to distinguish between Petros, which signifies Peter, and Petra, which signifies a rock, but in both places used the word Cephas: but his meaning is what is written in Greek, in which the different word endings distinguish between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and foundation: or else he named him Peter because of the confession of his faith, which is the Church's as well as his, as the old fathers witness, for so says Theophylact. That confession which you have made, shall be the foundation of the believers.
(m) The enemies of the Church are compared to a strong kingdom, and therefore by "gates" are meant cities which are made strong with wise preparation and fortifications, and this is the meaning: whatever Satan can do by cunning or strength. So does Paul, calling them strongholds; (2Co_10:4) 2.
Word Count: 1,347
Footnotes:
1) 1.Vincent�s Word Studies: Commentary on Matthew 16:19 � E-Sword 7.0.5
http://www.e-sword.net/commentaries.html
2) Geneva Bible Translation Notes on Matthew 16:17-19