Mattew 16:18

[ChristKnight]

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.

Both Lehi and I have been through this. In neither of those verses is Christ being given a proper name. There is quite a bit of difference in using "rock" in an analogy and calling someone, a male, rock. Someone can say "ChristKnight is a/the rock" and correctly use petra. Yet someone cannot say "ChristKnight's name is Rock" and use "petra". It is grammatically incorrect.

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.

Except that he couldn't use "petros" to do so, since it is grammatically incorrect to do so, as we have learned. I can't say use the male "profesor" to refer to a female, since it is not grammatically correct in Spanish. The neutral form of rock is "petra", therefore that is what is used. The neutral form of many words in spanish are male, and many others are female. "profesor" (professor) is the neutral word for professor, yet we have to change it to talk about a female professor.

Yes, that is your Church's doctrine that it refers to revelation, and you are welcome to believe that. Catholics see differently, and believe that the "rock" in the very sentence that "petra" is referring to is Peter, which means rock.

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.

Yes, it is. Context tells us what it means, and context tells us that it had to be used to refer to Peter, instead of petra, since it is grammatically impossible to call him "petra", as it is grammatically impossible for me to call a female professor by the male form.

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!

See above, I recognize the LDS POV. For Catholics, Jesus gave Peter the name Rock for a reason.

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.

Again, yes that is your belief. I don't see the relevance to Paul in the argument though. For Catholics, Peter being the rock is emphasized throughout the NT, with him having primacy among the Apostles, as well as receiving the keys. Here is something interesting that I have read:

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (â??tauteeâ?) generally refers to its closest antecedent (â??Petrosâ?). Also, there is no place in Scripture where â??faithâ? is equated with â??rock.â?

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

[ChristKnight]

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

That's great! Peter clearly was important.

[Ron Beron]

Matt. 16: 18

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this arock I will build my bchurch; and the gates of chell shall not dprevail against it.

Was this the catholic church or another denomination?

Definitely not Catholic since it nor any other church existed at this time. What Jesus calls Peter initially is cephas, "Jhn 1:42 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 by interpretation, A stone. Cephas here is a play on words since Jesus is using Peter's actual Hebrew name, Cephas (again, rock) to bring out the larger term and meaning, Petros or petra, i.e. rock. Later Jeuss again makes reference to this name when instructs Peter. Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to himself as the rock. Peter was the pebble, Jesus was the rock. The Greek uses a demonstrative pronoun, 'taute' which means 'this very' and refers to the actual rock on which the church is built. Hence, 'You are Peter, and on taute petra,' this very rock, 'I will build My Church.' The definition of church is also under some scrutiny because its usage connotates an actual hierarchal establishment which it certainly did not. Rather it pointed to a congregational unity within Judaism.

Finally, a word about the word, hell. The scriptural reading for hell is actually "hades", the Greek term for hell and not Sheol which is Jewish. An interesting term which probably means death. In Greek myth hades was a place none can return from. Therefore, Jesus is telling his disciples that death or martyrdom will not keep them from His promises, his resurrection.