Mattew 16:18

[Vance]

In Aramaic, this becomes even more clear, where "kepha" is used for both Peter and the rock (which is important because the conversation would have been in Aramaic, even if the Gospel was written in Greek), so the "little rock/stone" translation is not accurate when we not only take the Aramaic into consideration but also the Noun-Gender issue found in many non-English langauges, including Greek and Latin.

You are asserting that in the original conversation '"kepha" is used for both Peter and the rock'. If that were indeed true why would Matthew use two different words when writing in Greek? And what evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Without support for your premise (assertion), why should I accept your conclusion that the "translation is not accurate".

PS, I thought "Cephas" was used for Peter. Am I mistaken?

[ChristKnight]

You are asserting that in the original conversation '"kepha" is used for both Peter and the rock'. If that were indeed true why would Matthew use two different words when writing in Greek? And what evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Without support for your premise (assertion), why should I accept your conclusion that the "translation is not accurate".

PS, I thought "Cephas" was used for Peter. Am I mistaken?

I did not say that the "translation is not accurate". In fact, my post was in reference to someone else saying there was "something lost in translation".

I do believe I discussed this in the post, however I will again briefly.

"Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha". Kepha is Aramaic for "rock". Matthew would use two different words when writing in Greek (Petros for Peter and Petra for rock) because that is how grammar works in Greek, as it does in other languages that require Gender-Noun agreement, such as Latin and Spanish. Petros and Petra are different forms of the same word. Petros is masculine, Petra is feminine. Therefore, being a proper name, Petros is used to name Simon, since Simon is male. In Spanish we have the same issues with nouns. I may use "child" to refer to either a male or a female in English, however in Spanish, I would use nino (the second "n" has a tilde) for a male child, and nina (same) for a female child.

And of course most Biblical scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic (as well as some Greek and Hebrew), and even then, we can see how the gender of nouns is important in Greek. Therefore I don't see this as an issue.

[LeSellers]

You are asserting that in the original conversation '"kepha" is used for both Peter and the rock'.

That ought not be hard to accept. Peter and Jesus both spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. It would be far more difficult to imagine His speaking to His friend and chief Apostle in a foreign language, like Greek.

If that were indeed true why would Matthew use two different words when writing in Greek?

Because Greek is a highly inflected language. It would have been a grammatical deviance to use the feminine "Petra" as a name for Simon, a man.

And what evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Not him, so I'll let him defend his position.

However, people who speak only English, a language that relies heavily on prepositions and word order to establish the relationships between the ideas expressed by words in a sentence, often have a hard time understanding that "Petra" and "Peter" are not two different word, they are the same word in different forms. Something like "go" and "went".

Without support for your premise (assertion), why should I accept your conclusion that the "translation is not accurate".

You wouldn't have to if your assertion, i.e., that his was not based on anything demonstrable, was not, itself, false.

I thought "Cephas" was used for Peter. Am I mistaken?

"Cephas" is an English transliteration/adaptation of the Greek "kephas" (Κηφᾶς) which is only the Hellenized form of the Aramaic "Kephas" (in Hebrew, it's כּף). They all mean "rock" or "stone".

Lehi

[ChristKnight]

That ought not be hard to accept. Peter and Jesus both spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. It would be far more difficult to imagine His speaking to His friend and chief Apostle in a foreign language, like Greek.

Because Greek is a highly inflected language. It would have been a grammatical deviance to use the feminine "Petra" as a name for Simon, a man.

Not him, so I'll let him defend his position.

However, people who speak only English, a language that relies heavily on prepositions and word order to establish the relationships between the ideas expressed by words in a sentence, often have a hard time understanding that "Petra" and "Peter" are not two different word, they are the same word in different forms. Something like "go" and "went".

You wouldn't have to if your assertion, i.e., that his was not based on anything demonstrable, was not, itself, false.

"Cephas" is an English transliteration/adaptation of the Greek "kephas" (Κηφᾶς) which is only the Hellenized form of the Aramaic "Kephas" (in Hebrew, it's כּף). They all mean "rock" or "stone".

Lehi

Thank you Lehi!

[Vance]

I, obviously, need to clarify my question.

Why do you assume that no other "adjectives" (for lack of a better word) were used in the original Aramaic conversation? I understand that the same word "kephas" would have been used for both Peter and rock, but why assume that no additional words were used to convey that they (Peter and the rock) were separate entities?

I understand why "petros" (being masculine) was used for Peter. What I don't understand is why "petra" (being feminine) HAD to be used, UNLESS it was the intent of the author to convey a separate and distinct entity from Peter.

Why did the Greek author HAVE to use "petra", why could he not have written, "kago de su lego hoti su eimi petros kia epi houtos ho petros oikodomeo ego ho ekkiesia" OR "And I say also unto thee, That thou art "petros", and upon this "petros" I will build my church"?

I, obviously don't know Greek, so is there something inherent in it that REQUIRES that "petra" be used rather than "petros"?

If it was the intent of the author to express a separate entity, why would we not assume that that was the intent of the original Aramaic speaker as well? And if it was the intent of the original Aramaic speaker, would it be possible to use the same word in both places yet with the use of other descriptor words (adjectives?) be able to convey this intent?

[Vance]

BTW,

The reason I bring this up in the first place is that over 30 years ago a Catholic Priest assured me that Peter was NOT the "rock" because of the gender differences in the Greek.

[Areabird]

Quote

I'm wondering why you are saying that the Catholic Church must also claim to be a restoration of the original church to be the original church

Because the Catholic church does not beleive the same doctrines that the original Church did.

By this reasoning, then, the current LDS church cannot be related to the original LDS church (Joseph Smith's church) because the current church "does not believe in the same doctrines that the original Church did." In fact, your argument is the same argument that the fundamentalist polygamists use today. Interesting.

[BCSpace]

Because the Catholic church does not beleive the same doctrines that the original Church did.

By this reasoning, then, the current LDS church cannot be related to the original LDS church (Joseph Smith's church) because the current church "does not believe in the same doctrines that the original Church did."

While true that the original Church developed apostate doctrines early in it's history (such as sprinkling in place of baptism), my argument holds true because the closer you get to NT times, the more LDS the Church looks. In fact, virtually all the fundamental Biblical doctrines are present (the LDS Church being the only Church to pass Biblical muster).

Our version of the Godhead is there.

Our version of salvational requirements is there.

Our view of the afterlife (preaching the gospel to the dead, vicarious ordinances, three degrees of glory) is there.

etc. etc.

In fact, your argument is the same argument that the fundamentalist polygamists use today. Interesting.

Not the same at all. For example, they have either not factored in Jacob 2:30, or their problem really is with succession in the presidency, or they are simply sinful in the chastity sense. The LDS Church has not lost, abandonded, or given up the doctrine of plural marriage.

[ChristKnight]

I, obviously, need to clarify my question.

Why do you assume that no other "adjectives" (for lack of a better word) were used in the original Aramaic conversation? I understand that the same word "kephas" would have been used for both Peter and rock, but why assume that no additional words were used to convey that they (Peter and the rock) were separate entities?

I think the better question is to ask why would one assume that other "adjectives" were used in the actual Aramaic conversation. What we do know is what we have in front of us, and going back to the Aramaic version of that, we know that the same word is used for both Peter and "rock". That is what we base it on. We work with what we have, not with what could have been there.

I understand why "petros" (being masculine) was used for Peter. What I don't understand is why "petra" (being feminine) HAD to be used, UNLESS it was the intent of the author to convey a separate and distinct entity from Peter.

Because the actual Greek word for rock (the object) is petra. It is not petros. Therefore, in naming Simon, who is male, a different form of the word had to be used. We can't name a rock "petros" because that is not the Greek for the object "rock". This is the same in Spanish.

Why did the Greek author HAVE to use "petra", why could he not have written, "kago de su lego hoti su eimi petros kia epi houtos ho petros oikodomeo ego ho ekkiesia" OR "And I say also unto thee, That thou art "petros", and upon this "petros" I will build my church"?

See above. He couldn't have used "petros" for rock because the object 'rock' in Greek is petra. And of course the actual Greek manuscripts actually say "petra" and "Petros". The Orthodox understanding of this passage, as I believe I gave an excerpt from a book on the subject above, also sheds light on this passage, as they not only see the passage as referring to Peter himself, but also his confession, since it is through his confession that he is the rock. So, it does make sense that there are two different words used.

And of course, if he used "petros" in both places, it would read in English-"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my church". By using the word "petra", it emphasizes what the word Peter means, as well as the importance of Peter to the Church.

I, obviously don't know Greek, so is there something inherent in it that REQUIRES that "petra" be used rather than "petros"?

Yep, see above. It's the same in Spanish where the gender is fixed for certain nouns.

If it was the intent of the author to express a separate entity, why would we not assume that that was the intent of the original Aramaic speaker as well? And if it was the intent of the original Aramaic speaker, would it be possible to use the same word in both places yet with the use of other descriptor words (adjectives?) be able to convey this intent?

You are entitled to do that assumption. I think you're basing it on Petros vs. petra, and saying that this implies that the author wanted to show two different things, when Catholics see it as a grammatical issue, working in Greek. For Catholics, we do not see that the author was referring to two different things. We see that the author had to use a different word than the feminine petra to refer to Peter, since he is male, and that in Aramaic, the words would have been the same, since there is no gender difference. Sure, there could have been other "descriptor words", however there is no reason to assume so, in our understanding of the passage.

Here are a few articles on the issue that may be of interest to you (Catholic perspective):

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

http://net-abbey.org/petra.htm

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/origin_papacy/

[ChristKnight]

BTW,

The reason I bring this up in the first place is that over 30 years ago a Catholic Priest assured me that Peter was NOT the "rock" because of the gender differences in the Greek.

I'm a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that the Catholic priest said that Peter was not the rock? Could you clarify?

[Vance]

I'm a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that the Catholic priest said that Peter was not the rock? Could you clarify?

I will tell you the story. 30 years ago I was serving a mission in the Philippines. One day while tracting we knocked on the door of a retired and bedridden Catholic Priest. We were invited in and while visiting with him, he brought up the topic of being discussed here and he explained to me the genders used in the verse, actually spelling them out for me so I could take notes. He told us (to paraphrase) that Peter could NOT be the rock upon which the church was to be built BECAUSE (in the Latin as I recall though now I am not sure that it wasn't the Greek, if there is a difference) Peter was "petros" masculine and the rock was "petra" feminine.

So yes, it was a Catholic Priest, and he did explain to us WHY Peter was NOT the rock.

Now, if I understand what you have explained to me, you are implying that he was correct, because the author of the Greek COULD have used "petros" in place of "petra" if he wanted to EXPRESSLY mean that it was Peter upon which the church would be built.

To me, the fact that the author DIDN'T use "petros", is prima facie evidence that the author was purposely separating Peter from the "rock".

And this being the case, it would seem logical that the original speaker did in fact expressly separate "Peter" from the "rock" even though he would have used the same word for both. This would certainly imply that additional descriptor words (adjectives) would have been a part of the original conversation.

[ChristKnight]

I will tell you the story. 30 years ago I was serving a mission in the Philippines. One day while tracting we knocked on the door of a retired and bedridden Catholic Priest. We were invited in and while visiting with him, he brought up the topic of being discussed here and he explained to me the genders used in the verse, actually spelling them out for me so I could take notes. He told us (to paraphrase) that Peter could NOT be the rock upon which the church was to be built BECAUSE (in the Latin as I recall though now I am not sure that it wasn't the Greek, if there is a difference) Peter was "petros" masculine and the rock was "petra" feminine.

So yes, it was a Catholic Priest, and he did explain to us WHY Peter was NOT the rock.

Ahh okay. Well that is heretical in Catholicism. We firmly believe (it is doctrine) that Peter is the rock. "Profesor" is a male professor in Spanish, and "profesora" is a female professor in spanish. That doesn't mean that I'm not referring to a professor in either case.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Now, if I understand what you have explained to me, you are implying that he was correct, because the author of the Greek COULD have used "petros" in place of "petra" if he wanted to EXPRESSLY mean that it was Peter upon which the church would be built.

No, that is not what I am saying. The author could NOT have used "petros" in place of "petra" because the actual word for rock in Greek was "petra". We believe that he did expressly show that Peter was the rock that the Church was built upon, and that the author did so within the grammatical constraints of Greek. "profesor" is Spanish for professor, however if I want to talk about a female professor, I would say "profesora". It isn't possible to use the same word in all situations (even if I mean the same thing), because it has to agree with the gender (as well as whether it's referring to a name, title, etc) which is why Peter is Petros and not petra, and why you can't just replace petra with Petros, even if you mean the same title.

To me, the fact that the author DIDN'T use "petros", is prima facie evidence that the author was purposely separating Peter from the "rock".

Except that it wasn't possible in Koine Greek. You can't just put a word in that doesn't belong, and this is why it isn't grammatically correct to do so in this case.

And this being the case, it would seem logical that the original speaker did in fact expressly separate "Peter" from the "rock" even though he would have used the same word for both. This would certainly imply that additional descriptor words (adjectives) would have been a part of the original conversation.

See above.

[ChristKnight]

Here is what one of the articles I listed states, just in case I'm not being clear:

Two observation must be made on the Greek and the Latin translations of Matthew 16:18. Note in the Greek that the name of Peter is Petros, and the word for rock is petra. In Latin the name of Peter is Petrus and the word for rock is petra. This follows from the demands of the respective languages. Nouns in these languages, unlike English, have gender: some are masculine (e.g., -os or -us ending to words); some are feminine (e.g., -a or -am ending to words). The word for a rock in both languages is, of its nature, feminine; Peter, being a male, could not take a feminine ending to his name. It would be like calling him "Rockette" instead of "Rocky." Quite a difference! Hence it is only the demands of language that the gender of the words is different.

Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose. The literalness of the play on words--a linguistic pun--is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. "You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church." His intent becomes clear when we examine the Aramaic in which language Jesus addressed Peter.

[LeSellers]

I understand that the same word "kephas" would have been used for both Peter and rock, but why assume that no additional words were used to convey that they (Peter and the rock) were separate entities?

Any guesses here would be guesses, nothing more. You'll have to ask Matthew.

I understand why "petros" (being masculine) was used for Peter. What I don't understand is why "petra" (being feminine) HAD to be used, UNLESS it was the intent of the author to convey a separate and distinct entity from Peter.

It's just the way Greek (or any strongly gendered language) is.

Each noun has a gender. In English, we tend to forget this because most of our nouns are "neuter" and we don't have gender matching anyway. In French, for example, the word for "shirt" is "chemise", and it is feminine. All the words that describe a particular shirt must change their structure to be feminine as well. We could compose a sentence that says, "That's a very masculine shirt." In French, the sentence would be "C'est une chemise tr

[LeSellers]

Two observation must be made on the Greek and the Latin translations of Matthew 16:18. Note in the Greek that the name of Peter is Petros, and the word for rock is petra. In Latin the name of Peter is Petrus and the word for rock is petra. This follows from the demands of the respective languages. Nouns in these languages, unlike English, have gender: some are masculine (e.g., -os or -us ending to words); some are feminine (e.g., -a or -am ending to words). The word for a rock in both languages is, of its nature, feminine; Peter, being a male, could not take a feminine ending to his name. It would be like calling him "Rockette" instead of "Rocky." Quite a difference! Hence it is only the demands of language that the gender of the words is different.

Jesus renamed Simon bar-Jonah for a purpose.

That's true, but we disagree strongly on what that purpose is.

The issue, though, is linguistic, not philosophical. Jesus did not name Simon "Peter" (nor "Petros"), He named him "Kephas". It's a subtle distinction, but one that could play into the question strongly because the whole argument disappears if Kephas is masculine.

The literalness of the play on words--a linguistic pun--is made clear. A pun is a pun because of the literalness of the play on words. This was precisely what Jesus was saying. "You are Rocky and on this rock I will build my church." His intent becomes clear when we examine the Aramaic in which language Jesus addressed Peter.

So what is the Aramaic? Your quotation gives us only the Greek and the Latin.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that Kephas could be feminine as are "Petros" and "Petrus". But that still does not make that point about which Jesus was speaking.

The sentence itself does not make Peter the rock of the church. The antecedent of "this rock" is "revelation". The gates of hell did prevail against Peter, after all, he died.

Furthermore, "revelation" in Greek is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis), also a feminine noun. So it is more likely that Jesus, through Matthew, was comparing revelation to the rock than Peter.

Lehi

[Vance]

The author could NOT have used "petros" in place of "petra" because the actual word for rock in Greek was "petra".

So then, to refer to a "rock" separate from Peter, the author MUST use the feminine. Is that right? THAT is my point (and the point of the Catholic Priest, I think).

IF the author intended to point back to Peter rather than to a separate "rock", why couldn't he have done so by using Peter's new name "petros"?

The author first designates "petros" as Peter's new name, and so why refer to a "rock" rather than to Peter (petros) if he (the author) intended to point to "petros" (Peter) in the first place?

We believe that he did expressly show that Peter was the rock that the Church was built upon, and that the author did so within the grammatical constraints of Greek.

I know that is what YOU believe and I am not saying that you can't continue to do so.

BUT you are saying that Greek PROHIBITS the use of a persons name more than once within a statement?

It isn't possible to use the same word in all situations (even if I mean the same thing), because it has to agree with the gender (as well as whether it's referring to a name, title, etc) which is why Peter is Petros and not petra, and why you can't just replace petra with Petros, even if you mean the same title.

But is it possible to use the same personal/proper name?

"Thou are Peter (petros)" gives the new name, so why can't a proper name be used more than once in a single statement?

Also,

If the author's intent was to separate Peter from the "rock", would the statement have been written differently? If so, how?

PS, I know what the Catholic Priest's (his description not mine and I had no reason to not believe him) description is considered by some to be heretical, that is why it is so memorable to me.

[ChristKnight]

That's true, but we disagree strongly on what that purpose is.

Yes of course, we all disagree on what the purpose is. Some believe the rock is Peter, some believe the rock is Peter's confession, some believe it is both, some believe it is revelation.

The issue, though, is linguistic, not philosophical. Jesus did not name Simon "Peter" (nor "Petros"), He named him "Kephas". It's a subtle distinction, but one that could play into the question strongly because the whole argument disappears if Kephas is masculine.

Yes I agree that Jesus named him Kephas.

So what is the Aramaic? Your quotation gives us only the Greek and the Latin.

The link was provided earlier to Vance:

'aph 'ena' 'amar-na' lak da'(n)t-(h)uw ke'pha'

and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas

we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

I'm perfectly willing to concede that Kephas could be feminine as are "Petros" and "Petrus". But that still does not make that point about which Jesus was speaking.

The sentence itself does not make Peter the rock of the church. The antecedent of "this rock" is "revelation". The gates of hell did prevail against Peter, after all, he died.

Furthermore, "revelation" in Greek is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis), also a feminine noun. So it is more likely that Jesus, through Matthew, was comparing revelation to the rock than Peter.

Lehi

What is the LDS apologetic behind revelation being the rock? A link will do if it is a long explanation. Or both!

Also, what is the LDS understanding of why Jesus gave Simon the name Peter?

Just before Matt 16:18, we see that Peter confesses that Jesus is Christ, the Son of the Living God. Some see that as the rock that the Church is built on. Also, from a simple logical POV, if Jesus is saying "you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church", what is the "this rock" that is right in the sentence? Peter.

[Vance]

The sentence itself does not make Peter the rock of the church. The antecedent of "this rock" is "revelation". The gates of hell did prevail against Peter, after all, he died.

Furthermore, "revelation" in Greek is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis), also a feminine noun. So it is more likely that Jesus, through Matthew, was comparing revelation to the rock than Peter.

Lehi

This is exactly what I have understood.

If I am not mistaken, you have basically answered the question I asked ChristKnight, in that if the author intended to refer to a separate entity from "Peter" he wouldn't have needed to word the phrase differently. Thanks.

[ChristKnight]

So then, to refer to a "rock" separate from Peter, the author MUST use the feminine. Is that right? THAT is my point (and the point of the Catholic Priest, I think).

Yes, basically. to give Peter the name "rock", you cannot call him "petra". To call a female a professor in Spanish, you cannot use the male (and plural generic) form "profesor". You call a female professor "profesora". Yet you call more than one professor "professores" which is male, yet is generic since it can refer to a group of males, a group of females, or a mix.

IF the author intended to point back to Peter rather than to a separate "rock", why couldn't he have done so by using Peter's new name "petros"?

The author first designates "petros" as Peter's new name, and so why refer to a "rock" rather than to Peter (petros) if he (the author) intended to point to "petros" (Peter) in the first place?

I think Lehi discussed this as well as assumptions on what could or could not have been done. He could not have used Peter's new name because He is calling Peter a rock. A rock is petra in Greek. This is a poetic explanation.

I know that is what YOU believe and I am not saying that you can't continue to do so.

BUT you are saying that Greek PROHIBITS the use of a persons name more than once within a statement?

Of course not. What I am saying is that the name was not used twice in the sentence. I am also saying that if Jesus wanted to call Peter a rock, he could not use the feminine form "petra" to do so. That's what I am saying.

But is it possible to use the same personal/proper name?

"Thou are Peter (petros)" gives the new name, so why can't a proper name be used more than once in a single statement?

Of course Petros can be used more than once in a sentence. But I think the point that you are missing is that it wasn't, and it can't, because Jesus is explicitly saying that Peter is a rock, yet he cannot use the word "rock" as the name of Peter, since it is feminine.

Also,

If the author's intent was to separate Peter from the "rock", would the statement have been written differently? If so, how?

I think that Jesus could have separated Simon from the "rock" by not calling him a rock. Or, the author could have said that "you are a rock, and upon the other rock (revelation in LDS thought) I will build my Church".

PS, I know what the Catholic Priest's (his description not mine and I had no reason to not believe him) description is considered by some to be heretical, that is why it is so memorable to me.

Okay. And just to be clear, his statement isn't considered heretical just by "some", it is heretical according to the Catholic Church. It is doctrine that Peter (and his office) is the rock that the Church is built on.

[LeSellers]

The link was provided earlier to Vance:

Sorry, I didn't see it.

'aph 'ena' 'amar-na' lak da'(n)t-(h)uw ke'pha'

and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas

we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

I'm getting an unsettled feeling about this. There is a very good Semitic root for "hell" and I'd expect every Semitic language to include it, but this translation seems to transliterate the Greek "hades" instead of using the "sheol" or "gehenna" we should expect. Help! Any experts out there?

What is the LDS apologetic behind revelation being the rock? A link will do if it is a long explanation. Or both!

Got no link. Just reasonable reading skills.

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Christ was speaking of revelation ("my Father hath revealed this to thee") an dit is on revelation that Christ's church must rest unless anyone can reasonably persuade me that men can maintain the clarity of the Gospel without periodic calls from the dugout.

Also, what is the LDS understanding of why Jesus gave Simon the name Peter?

I don't know that there is a LDS understanding. What I have seen and accept is that Peter was not as strong as he'd need to be, so Christ gave him the name as a goal or talisman so he'd develop into the man he'd have to become to lead the Church.

We contrast the Peter on the Sea of Galilee with the one who boldly declared his loyalty to Christ in front of the Temple officers and we see that there was a marked difference. Was the name a part of that transformation? I believe it was.

Just before Matt 16:18, we see that Peter confesses that Jesus is Christ, the Son of the Living God. Some see that as the rock that the Church is built on. Also, from a simple logical POV, if Jesus is saying "you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church", what is the "this rock" that is right in the sentence? Peter.

Yet Peter died a mere 40 years later, at most. Not a stable foundation, I'd say.

Revelation is far more solid, as long as people are willing to listen and accept it. alas, they did not.

Lehi

[Vance]

It appears that you have had this conversation before.

Deja vu? All over again!

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/44709-matthew-16/

[ChristKnight]

Sorry, I didn't see it.

I'm getting an unsettled feeling about this. There is a very good Semitic root for "hell" and I'd expect every Semitic language to include it, but this translation seems to transliterate the Greek "hades" instead of using the "sheol" or "gehenna" we should expect. Help! Any experts out there?

I'm no expert on Aramaic (or Greek), however it's clear in the excerpt that you gave, if we go back to the website, that he isn't translating anything related to Hell/Hades/Sheol/Gehenna, but "hade" is included in the sentence "upon this rock...". Here is what that website had:

we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy

and upon this rock I will build her namely my church

Got no link. Just reasonable reading skills.

Christ was speaking of revelation ("my Father hath revealed this to thee") an dit is on revelation that Christ's church must rest unless anyone can reasonably persuade me that men can maintain the clarity of the Gospel without periodic calls from the dugout.

I don't know that there is a LDS understanding. What I have seen and accept is that Peter was not as strong as he'd need to be, so Christ gave him the name as a goal or talisman so he'd develop into the man he'd have to become to lead the Church.

We contrast the Peter on the Sea of Galilee with the one who boldly declared his loyalty to Christ in front of the Temple officers and we see that there was a marked difference. Was the name a part of that transformation? I believe it was.

Yet Peter died a mere 40 years later, at most. Not a stable foundation, I'd say.

Revelation is far more solid, as long as people are willing to listen and accept it. alas, they did not.

Lehi

Thanks for explaining your view. I think I need to emphasize that for Catholics, it is not just that Peter in and of himself is the rock of the Church, but that the office that he occupied, as head of the Apostles, and the Church, would continue on, and is a sign of unity of the Church, as well as a necessary office in the Church.

[ChristKnight]

I just downloaded "Living Words: The Words of Christ in Aramaic-English Interlinear Edition" by Joseph Elias. It translates "hade" as "this", which makes sense in the quote given in that Catholic apologetics article. Of course, an authority in Aramaic can confirm this, but that's just what I've found.

[Vance]

CK: Yes, basically. to give Peter the name "rock", you cannot call him "petra".

V: Ok, but that seems to be contradicted by Christ being called â??petraâ? in 1 Cor 10:4 and 1 Pet 2:6-8.

CK: He could not have used Peter's new name because He is calling Peter a rock. A rock is petra in Greek.

V: Sorry but that doesnâ??t compute. The fact is, for Him to call Peter (petros) a rock (petra) REQUIRES Him to use Peterâ??s (petros) new name (petros). Now if you mean that it was grammatically incorrect to use â??petrosâ? in place of â??petraâ? in that verse, then I understand what you are saying but then see above.

Also, I donâ??t see how He is calling Peter (petros) a rock (petra). I do see that â??thisâ? in â??upon this rockâ? as referring to a preceding entity (revelation) which is the subject of the conversation.

CK: What I am saying is that the name was not used twice in the sentence. I am also saying that if Jesus wanted to call Peter a rock, he could not use the feminine form "petra" to do so. That's what I am saying.

V: See above.

CK: Of course Petros can be used more than once in a sentence.

V: Good, because it is use more than once on several occasions.

CK: But I think the point that you are missing is that it wasn't, and it can't, because Jesus is explicitly saying that Peter is a rock, yet he cannot use the word "rock" as the name of Peter, since it is feminine.

V: See above.

CK: I think that Jesus could have separated Simon from the "rock" by not calling him a rock.

V: Again, I donâ??t see anywhere in that verse where Jesus is calling Simon/Peter/petros a â??rockâ?/petra!

CK: Or, the author could have said that "you are a rock, and upon the other rock (revelation in LDS thought) I will build my Church".

V: But since the subject of the conversation was revelation it would be unnecessary. I would also point out that Paul didnâ??t receive the Gospel from Peter but from revelation.

[Vance]

I would also point out that of the 162 times "petros" is used in the NT, it is referring to Peter every time.