[Superman]

OK, so I have had several "challenges" by some people as to my arguments for use of the definite article, claiming that grammar from one author to next is different, because different author's have different writing styles. Although it is true you may see different style, the rules of grammar are the same. If we are to assume one letter may use one set of rules for the Article and another letter has a new set of rules? Thats retarded. We'd never be confident in our interpretations.

I got an email from someone who had passed on my findings to someone else. His friend said:

"I'm battling to find anyone who will agree with your
logic...

...But the argument from grammar is quite faulty because
Greek style varies considerably from writer to writer
and John's Gospel contains material from other writers
as well. Jesus is the Speaker in the latter case and
John or Lazarus (my view) in the first case. But
there is no Trinity doctrine without the Papacy, under
which it was created and sanctified. Accepting that
doctrine REQUIRES acceptance of the Papacy's authority
as of the fourth century. Remember, the Protestant
Reformation came a thousand years later. This fact is
very well known in theological circles. My sense,
only a guess perhaps, is that the author of the
article had heard of this argument 'for' the Papacy
and was looking for some way to refute it....

...Your friend doesn't know any Greek. He is trying to apply English
grammar rules to the Greek language. It doesn't work like that. Isn't it
strange that NO ONE has ever made either of those arguments to my knowledge
for the verses in question?

It has been claimed that NO ONE has ever made this argument, so I must be wrong. I will admit that I have not read this argument prior to my discoveries. I have checked and rechecked, I have asked others who read Greek, both here at CGR and at home to tell me if my logic using John 1:1 as an example is correct about the Articl in Matt. 16:18. All have agreed based on what they know.
So I went on a hunt. I found a couple places that AGREE with me. Check this out:

http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/mat16_18-20.html

Here is an excerpt from this site. I made bold the points that resemble my arguments the most:

"3. Now what follows is a very common but very significant word that is usually overlooked by those trying to explain this passage. It is the definite article, THE, and should be translated, "This The Rock."

The article is in the feminine singular form and agrees with the demonstrative pronoun that precedes it.

4. Rock: petra is a feminine singular noun, and refers to a large rock or bedrock, and a stone, when used in parallel with lithos.

The change from the masculine (petros) to the feminine (petra) is dramatic and with the definite article draws even more significance to it. Indeed, it will remind any person who is oriented to the Old testament, of Deuteronomy 32:4, The Rock. In addition, the dramatic situation should be taken into consideration. Imagine Jesus, as He talks to Peter, placing His hand upon His chest as He says, "upon This The Rock."

There is a strong contrast here between Peter "a" rock and "THE" Rock who is Christ; the same ROCK who, as the chief corner stone (foundation), is a petra of offense to the Jewish unbelievers (Rom. 9:33). Jesus is the foundation rock upon which the church is built (1 Peter 2:6-8).
All throughout the Old Testament, THE ROCK is the God of Israel; a common and descriptive title for the revealed member of the Godhead. Deuteronomy 32:4; 1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 44:8

Further down the page, he says this:

It is claimed that the presense of the definite article in the Greek has no significance because the gospel of Matthew is believed to have been originally written in Aramaic, and Jesus spoke the words to Peter in Aramaic where Peter and rock are the same word.

Assuming that this is true for the moment, since the translation into the Greek preserves the exact meaning and intent of the Aramaic, then in the Aramaic, the definite article would be present and IT alone would be enough to set up the contrast. Furthermore, the vividness of face-to-face conversation would add clarification to the hearer, and the presence of the definite article makes an obvious impact. What the Greek has done for us here (assuming the Aramaic original, whether verbal or written) is to ensure that the distinction is made between "you are a rock" and "this THE ROCK".

This is more or less what I said, no?

Here is another site that mentions the article (although no where as thorough as I did) about Matt 16:18

http://www.thebereans.net/prof-romanism.shtml

In it, he quotes other places where Christ is called THE rock, and notes the definite article in those verses, and THE LACK OF IT FOR PETER and hints that Petra had the article (THE rock

...So we look further for the context of the whole Bible and realize that the God is often referred to as the Rock, observe the definite article in the following references Deuteronomy 32:4; 32:15; 32:18; and 2 Samuel 23:3:

"The Rock--how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! A faithful God, without deceit, how just and upright he is!" (Deuteronomy32:4, NAB)

"(So Jacob ate his fill,) the darling grew fat and frisky; you became fat and gross and gorged. They spurned the God who made them and scorned their saving Rock." (Deuteronomy 32:15, NAB. "[T]he Rock of his salvation" in the KJV.)_

"The God of Israel spoke; of me the Rock of Israel said, 'He that rules over men in justice, that rules in the fear of God,"_ (2 Samuel 23:3, NAB)_

Note the definite article in the quotes. Remember that Jesus may have called Simon as Cephas, but Cephas (Peter) was not THE cephas (the rock) which Jesus built his church.

So although it is not common, because the focus of the debate always falls on the word definitions of Petros and Petra, it's obvious others have caught it before me. Im not the only one.

The burden of proof lis upon those who calim my translation is incorrect. Prove to me I'm wrong. Or shut up.

I think the case is closed.

[brown07]

Superman, thanks for your research and posts.

I think that your point is further made by looking at how Jesus' immediate audience (the disciples) understood the teaching...

I Peter 2:4-5

"As you come to him, the living Stone - rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him - you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

Peter goes on to quote Old Testament prophecies referring to Christ as the cornerstone.

So, it becomes clear that Peter, one of the people who heard Jesus' teaching in John IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE (not even the Greek, mind you) understood Jesus to be THE ROCK, while he was A ROCK, along with the rest of the believers.

[frostydv]

16:18 on this rock. The word for “Peter,” Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra which means a foundation boulder (cf. 7:24, 25). Since the NT makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Cor. 3:11) and the head (Eph. 5:23) of the church, it is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Eph. 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. Peter himself explains the imagery in his first epistle: the church is built of “living stones” (1 Pet. 2:5) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Christ Himself is the “chief cornerstone” (1 Pet. 2:6, 7). church. Matthew is the only gospel where this term is found (see also 18:17). Christ called it “My church,” emphasizing that He alone is its Architect, Builder, Owner, and Lord. The Gr. word for church means “called out ones.” While God had since the beginning of redemptive history been gathering the redeemed by grace, the unique church He promised to build began at Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit, by whom the Lord baptized believers into His body—which is the church (see notes on Acts 2:1–4; 1 Cor. 12:12, 13). the gates of Hades. Hades is the place of punishment for the spirits of dead unbelievers. The point of entry for such is death. This, then, is a Jewish phrase referring to death. Even death, the ultimate weapon of Satan (cf. Heb. 2:14, 15), has no power to stop the church. The blood of martyrs, in fact, has sped the growth of the church in size and spiritual power.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible, (Dallas: Word Publishing) 1997.

[RECUSA]

I have read this a few times myself. I find it most interesting and have no argument against it. But then, I'm not into papacy either. However, the Greek usages seem in order and I aplaud SuperMan for his work here. I had never put those two passages together like this and now have yet another argument against the papists.

One thing.......Some people claim, as you said they do, that the papacy was in force around 400AD. I agree that there was a pope then, but that anybody with any church history knows it wasn't the same as what the RCC claims it is now. That took place around 800AD I believe. Before that, the church was way more universal and was ruled by something more similar to an episcopacy. I'm not trying to uphold episcopacy as absolute, but just showing that those who dismiss trinitarianism for this reason are wrong in their understanding of history.

Good job Super. Lots of appreciated work here.

[brown07]

I'm still waiting to hear from a papist on this thread...

*squints his eyes and looks around for Catholics*...

Welp, they're nowhere to be found. It appears that they do not wish to touch this one.

[Supah Fly]

I found my old Aplified New Testament and thought I'd give a bible quote so I scanned a portion of the page:

[Dr. Doom]

Scott, any post with so much effort and length deserves big time props...and a conversion from calvinism...well, maybe not the latter