thessalonian Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 Quick question. Did any of the Greek Speaking Fathers of the Church or anyone in the first 1500 years of Christianity make the Petros/Petra little stone, massive rock arguement that Protestants make today? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller. . I don't recall any. seems kinda significant to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 You could look at Iranaeus Against the Heresies. This has nothing to do with your question, but he talks about the importance of the See of Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 I am aware of those who assert Peter as the rock of matt 16:18. I also am aware of some who use multiple understandings of the passage but I think there are 1 or two that make any indication that Peter is not the rock of Matt 16:18. That stuff is old hat. But it seems strange to me that for 1500+ years noone ever said that Peter was not the rock because Peter means petros, means little stone. Not even the greek speaking fathers who should have raised this if it were true. We know the Kepha arguement and also it seems unlikely that petros was used for stone in Jesus time except perhaps in some poetry. My point is more directly to even if my greek ain't so good, why for 1500 years didn't the greek speaking world CRY OUT PETER AINT THE DANG ROCK BECAUSE HE IS PETROS, A LITTLE STONE. Not a peep that I know of. Silence many times makes a bad arguement but it seems to me it is golden here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 You know, the Greek of Matthew is probably a translation, so their argument is moot anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 if the silence weren't enough, there are also many eastern fathers who defend Peter's primacy among the apostles and the position of his successor among the other bishops: [url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl.../patriarchs.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 Thanks phat. I am using this to respond to a radio guy who used the same old lame arguements about petros/petra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blovedwolfofgod Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 thess, sometimes i wonder if you ever do other things with your time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 . I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now