Talk:Primacy of Peter

message: I edited the followed sentence as it is not supported by fact:
"In the Greek text, the new name given is "Πέτρος" (Petros), and in the second half of the same verse the word translated as "rock" is "πέτρα" (petra). In the language that Jesus spoke, the same word, "כפא" (cepha), was used for both Peter's name and for the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church."
The sentences give the reader the false impression that the Bible was translated from Hebrew. There is no evidence to back up the claim.  There is no evidence to support that the Greek NT is translated from Aramaic, Hebrew or any other language. In fact, modern Biblical historians have concluded that Jesus and his apostles (with much supported evidence) spoke fluent Greek. And most Biblical scholars agree that most (if not all) of the NT was written in Greek ---and not a translation. The Septuagint provides clear evidence that Jewish OT scripture was written in Greek because most Jews had forgotten how to read and speak Hebrew.  The Septuagint was written 300 years before Christ was even born. During Christ's time, Hebrew scripture had to be translated to Greek or Aramaic for the general Jewish population to read. It is true however, that Jesus also read and spoke Hebrew and Aramaic.
Greek Primacy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm#Chapter_Three
70.122.241.250 (talk)Agios Theseus  —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NT was NOT translated

message: It seems that a lot of evidence is given for the RC point of view, and much less for the Protestant one, with a focus on one rather marginal argument (petros vs. petra). Maybe an expert could give some attention to how non-Catholics read those passages?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.10.8 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The Protestant section is much shorter, much less well-written, and even contains a "and this Protestant agrees with the Catholics" section. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More attention given to Protestant views? 

message: I have merged Petrine doctrine with this article in recent updates. I realize this gives the article more of a Catholic tilt as per the comment above, but the other article is, more or less 99% CPOV and this article makes an attempt at a more NPOV. This article could be improved with more neutral sources. If you wish to discuss or make suggestions, please be bold. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I didn't know the other page existed. Yes, that was a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger proposal with [[Petrine doctrine]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Primacy of Peter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623214259/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM#-F1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726101430/http://www.catholic.com:80/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216055823/http://users.stargate.net/~elcore/kephas.htm to http://users.stargate.net/~elcore/kephas.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203191915/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GawrischDoctrine.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GawrischDoctrine.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203192344/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BalgeMinistry.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BalgeMinistry.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203182715/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/EckertSpecific.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/EckertSpecific.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There does not appear to be a source that refers to the Psalms in order to provide background for Matthew 16:18. The choice of Psalm 62 is also not sourced; it is editorial. If Psalm 62 is relevant, then any other reference to rocks in the Bible is relevant. The next paragraphs (after both instances where Psalms 62 appears) provide no further discussion on Psalm 62, nor do they provide sources (just one explanatory footnote). I removed the first reference to Psalm 62 as WP:OR. My edit was [reverted]. Please discuss. —KinkyLipids (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Take another look. I self-reverted about 30 minutes ago. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ KinkyLipids (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and editorial use of Psalm 62 

message: Ignatius quote: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church." is far from supporting primacy of pope. 
Lot of other citations are about Peter being first among apostles, but not proving supremacy of Rome. Peter and Paul were first bishops of Antioch before Rome. MartinPot (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church fathers "proving" papacy