| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sunny |
Posted - 04/10/2008 : 23:28:37
Rocks And Stones
Question: Please comment on the following argument which I read in a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:
1.Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
2.The Aramaic word kepha is translated petra or petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
3.Jesus could not have said, ‘You are petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.”
4.That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.
Answer: The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.
Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.
But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me.
It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language, since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what were Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument - indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ - on mere speculations?
The Catholic apologist bends over backwards to convince us that petros and petra are equivalent Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not identical meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).
Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:
“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Sim |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ftbond |
Posted - 06/07/2012 : 11:57:43
If you want some really good, well-researched info on this Petros petra kepha stuff, go check out this website:
http://www.freetowne.com/pppk
|
| at1ment |
Posted - 02/25/2009 : 11:58:16
A big HOWDY!!! Alex
Sunny left because Catholic posters here confused her with facts.
Maybe you may want to instoduce yourself on the Welcome to Spero thread.
God Bless
|
| Diana Holberg |
Posted - 02/25/2009 : 04:39:21
Welcome, Alex...  |
| jdubya |
Posted - 02/24/2009 : 21:34:19
Hi and welcome Alex. Sunny is long gone and was not open to honest dialogue anyway. |
| aball1035 |
Posted - 02/24/2009 : 18:04:25
quote:
Originally posted by Sunny
WRONG ALL THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
SUNNY! Have YOU read the link yourself??? It says that MOST of the NT is in Greek, NOT ALL!!!
I quote:
"Obviously these three gospels were written in Greek, as their audience was Greek-speaking, and only the gospel of Matthew is singled out as having been written in Hebrew!"
"The evidence all shows that Almighty God INSPIRED Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the rest of the writers of the New Testament -- even including Peter and James -- of having written their gospels and epistles IN GREEK! Only Matthew's gospel was apparently written first in Hebrew or Aramaic"
Maybe you should read your own post before you put it up here... It will save you and others a lot of time!
Or maybe you meant eventually they were all written in Greek. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If so, what's your point?
All for Jesus, all through Mary
Alex B. |
| mikejuli |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 18:46:26
quote:
Originally posted by Sunny
WRONG ALL THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
having read the bible 8 million times i thought you might have picked up on some of these verses.. like
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
or how about
Mar 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
or how about someone called peter who is also called cephas which is aramaic too.
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.
|
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 18:29:57
Sunny,
Nice try. How about this:
quote:
Possible Aramaic or Hebrew gospel of Matthew
There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters, which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The sixteenth century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.
Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Greek primacy).[4] If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars, including the Roman Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the Pe****ta and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.
Biblical scholar Stephen L. Harris of the Jesus Seminar mentions that the claims of Matthew Levi being the author could actually be references to "an early Christian, perhaps named Matthew, who assembled a list of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, a collection that the creator of our present gospel may have used."[14] The Jesus narrative would then have been assembled around these Tanakh (Old Testament) verses.
A Hebrew text of Matthew was published by the Spanish Jewish polemicist Ibn Shaprut in the 14th century. Although it has usually been considered to be his own translation, there are various signs pointing to the possibility that he was using a pre-existing text that may have been based on something older than our present Greek text. There is also a papyrus codex in Coptic containing Matthew from verse 5:38 to the end which also seems to contain hints of an older text. Some passages make more sense, such as the Jews saying to Jesus "Hoshanna in the house of David" ("Save, we pray, in the house of David") rather than "Hoshanna to the son of David" ("Save, we pray, to the son of David") in Matthew 21:9 and 21:15. [15]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship
and
quote:
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."
Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax col |
| michael |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 17:29:41
Shem*Peter
Shem was blessed (Gen 9:20)*Peter was blessed (Matt 16:17)
bless means 1 : to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word
hallow means 1 : to make holy or set apart for holy use
Consecrate means 1 : to induct (a person) into a permanent office with a religious rite; esp : to ordain to office of bishop
Shem was nominated*Peter was nominated
The Hebrew word for name is shem*Simon was named Peter by Jesus
nominate comes from nominare to name, fr. nomen name
nominate means
1: DESIGNATE, NAME
2 a : to appoint or propose for appointment to an office or place
name means 3 : to nominate for office : APPOINT
the line of Shem, as distinct from those of Ham & Japheth, is marked out for God’s especial blessing and protection. God was known only to the Israelites the decendants of Shem. He [Noah] also said “Blessed be the Lord [Yahweh] the God of Shem! Let Canaan be his slave, Gen 9:26*the line of Popes as distinct from those of the other disciples is marked out for God’s especial blessing and protection Jesus said to him [Peter] in reply, “blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh & blood [human considerations] has not revealed this to you but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall prevail against it.
The line of Shem*the line of Popes
the Israelite people, the assembly of chosen people before God. Notice God does the choosing not the people. Noah was from the Godly line of Seth & Noah blessed Shem*the Catholic Church, the assembly of chosen people before God. Notice God does the choosing not the people. Jesus was from the Godly line of David, David was from the Godly line of Abraham, Abraham was from the Godly line of Shem, & Jesus blessed Peter
make a name for ourselves Gen 11:4
Notice Gods blessings do not come from the democratic vote of men*Make a denomination for ourselves Notice Gods blessings do not come from the democratic vote of men
denominate means 1 : to give name to
denominate comes from de + nominare to name
de
1 : do the opposite of
b : reverse of
2 a : remove (a specified thing) from
2 b : removed from ( a specified thing)
3 : reduce
4 : something derived from
[more at dis]
dis
1 a : do the opposite of
b : deprive of
c : exclude or expel from
2 : opposite or absence of
3 : not
at the tower of Bable, In order to make a name for themselves or de nominate, first there has to be someone who was named or nominated (Shem)*Protestants, in order to de nominate, first there has to be someone who was named or nominated (Peter)
The Tower of Babel story has been widely understood to tell of a miraculous intervention by which different languages were introduced and the population thus became unable to understand one another. But it must be noted that the different groups among not only the Japhethites and Hamites, (Gen 10:5 & 10:20) but also among the Shemites, (Gen 10:31) are already recorded to have their various languages, and as the two former groups are out of the story, the origin of languages is not recorded here. Moreover, the word for ‘languages’ is lason |
| jdubya |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 15:41:57
Nor would they understand the backdrop that Jesus used in Caesarea Phillipi to clarify it even further.
This huge ROCK is the place of a pagan temple built by Herod and in the cave were the headwaters of the Jordan River. A deep pool lay inside the cave was called the "Gates of Hell" where the pagans dumped their sacrificed animals.
 |
| Nicene |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 15:22:26
Here is something else to throw in the mix, which Christ and the apostles were quite aware of but the bible aloner isn't; The temple of Jerusalem in Jewish tradition was built upon a rock which which was the capstone of hell. Jesus is rebuilding the temple in the people and Peter is that capstone and Jesus the cornerstone.
Of course fundamentalists would never have any idea what Jesus is referring to, nor the keys.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene |
| jdubya |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 14:50:07
By the way, none of this changes the fact that there was no distinction between petra and petros in koine Greek. Your hack scholars have to go back to a long dead language to promote such a myth.
If you can prove that petra and petros meant different things in koine Greek, I will gladly shut up.
Do you understand that there are languages that have gender differences? Do you know any Spanish? Didn't you learn anything about gender in your extensive studies of Greek?
So far, I see no evidence that you have any knowledge of koine Greek at all. |
| jdubya |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 14:40:18
The earliest writers from Papias, Irenaeus, Esebius, Origen,.... and Jerome (Early 2nd through 4th century) tell us that Matthew was originally written in the language of the Jews. There was not an argument on the point. Even with all of these witnesses from the very early church, I don't accept it completely as truth, but the weight of evidence is pretty heavy in the direction that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
When you blurt out that someone is WRONG without any research done on your own, then pasting some modern Protestant study as your proof, you are just engaging in politics. There is no search for truth in you at all. It's just I'm always right and everyone else is wrong.
The fact that we have Greek transliterations of Aramaic words and direct Aramaic quotes from Jesus in the bible, should tell you something.
It is held by 99%+ of theologians that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. You just happened to pick out one of the UFO nuts and KOOLAID drinkers who disagrees. All along, you have no clue yourself, but just make up your theology and history as the web searches show you.
|
| Sunny |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 13:01:40
WRONG ALL THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
|
| jdubya |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:49:54
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus
BTW, some scholars believe Matthew was originally written in a no longer extant Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript.
/NOD That's what I meant when I said that Sunny couldn't know.
The earliest writers all testify that Matthew was originally written in the native language of the Jews. |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:23:07
And let's not forget the keys to the kingdom, given singularly to Peter, his being the first given the power to bind and loose in God's name, his being told to "confirm his brethren," his being told to feed/tend the lambs/sheep (by the Good Shepherd himself, no less).
It's pretty clear that Peter had singular authority among the Apostles.
BTW, some scholars believe Matthew was originally written in a no longer extant Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript.
|
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS