| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ftbond |
Posted - 05/19/2012 : 16:59:34
If you want some seriously good, "non-partisan" linguistic research info on the Peter-petros-petra-kepha thing, you need to check out
http://www.freetowne.com/pppk
The site just gives some pretty in-depth info, and actually gives source info and reference material, etc...
Helps to cut through a bunch of the mis-information floating around out there about the "Peter the rock" thing... |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| bwellmysoul |
Posted - 05/31/2012 : 10:42:19
G4Me,
You post the same answer time and time again - after we time and time again prove you wrong.
The online Aramaic websites proves you wrong. You lie about your "Fact".
You are a broken record.
|
| God4me |
Posted - 05/31/2012 : 10:10:04
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Matthew 16:18 in the existing Aramaic texts show Kepha not Shua.
The text is available for all to see what a bald faced liar you are.
I won't ask you to admit the truth because you are not capable of that, I would not wish to put your soul in further peril.
You could not even admit the truth in the one place we agreed. You would rather contradict yourself than admit that a Catholic had anything right.
If you read Mat 16: 18,the original Aramic, You'll dee it says.
Matt 16: 18, In Aramaic,
"You are Kepha, And upon Shu"a", I will build My Church"..FACT
But you catholics have to tell lies, because the truth proves you wrong.
Only the catholics and the people who got it from the catholics says Jesus built His Church on Kepha, Petros. |
| jdubya |
Posted - 05/31/2012 : 10:03:14
quote:
Originally posted by ftbond
Look... Nobody knows what Jesus said in Aramaic in Matt 16:18... That's the big problem. There are no "original Aramaic" copies that say "...you are Kepha, and upon this kepha..." - AND - there's none that say "...you are Kepha, and upon this shua..". The Catholics are DESPERATE to have Petros and petra mean the same thing, because their whole eccliastical structure depends on it. So, they'll manufacture all kinds of "assertions", but that's just the deal. They're only ASSERTIONS.
You need to check out http://www.freetowne.com/pppk for some good, serious, factual linguistic info on all this. It's not "protestant", it's not "anti-Catholic". It's just linguistic stuff.
You guys are going back and forth on stuff that you don't know about...
I have read quite a bit of this guy's stuff and did learn that petros was used in Maccabees. I didn't previously know that.
I previously learned of variety in the way kepha, petra and other variants are used. It's all nice to know in order to be factual when discussing this issue. I realize there are Catholic apologists out there that are not in complete command of the facts. However, in the end, the linguistic arguments don't change the bottom line.
Your author is also fact-challenged. I have also looked at his personal thoughts and saw a bunch of emotional red herrings such as "I never received a revelation of Peter as rock" and basically comparing Peter to Jesus. We certainly don't do that. We just believe that Christ set up a visible church as the pillar and foundation of the truth to teach his word without error.
He also says that there was lots of debate and that some church fathers denied Peter as the rock. I would like to see one as I don't know of any.
Many considered Peter's confession as the rock, but everyone of them also wrote that Peter himself was the rock in Matthew 16. They didn't separate the person of Peter from his confession. Peter as the rock was ubiquitous in the early church.
Jesus realized that Peter infallibly transmitted this revelation from God and blessed Peter, promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, the power to bind and loose what is already true in heaven, and the promise that the church would not fail. Jesus subsequently granted binding and loosing authority to the other apostles in Matt 18 for settling disputes. They would settle disputes and those who didn't submit were to be considered heathens and publicans (outside of the church).
We see this in action in Acts 15 where the decision of the council is binding on the whole church. And guess what? Peter stood up after much debate and proclaimed the truth of the matter and every one became silent. The debate ended.
There is also this notion that the Greek Orthodox split off in the 11th century because they basically believe the same things as Protestants do about the papacy. This isn't true at all. The schism was more about egos than anything. They still recognize the unique office of the bishop of Rome and apostolic succession. Protestants, especially those of the low ecclesiology variety, think these offices which have existed from the beginning, are either inventions of men or passed away with the apostles.
When you cut through all of the objections that are intended to muddy the waters, you have these facts.
Peter's name was changed from Simon to Kepha. We know this because his name is transliterated into Greek as Cephas. We also have John 1:42 where Jesus says you will be called Cephas (Kepha) which means petros, not petros which means cephas.
This and the fact that the early church told us that Matthew was originally written in the language of the Jews and translated to Greek later on tells us that Jesus used Kepha as promised in John 1:42. There is no doubt that John's Gospel was written in Greek.
Then add the fact that Jesus took a two day journey by foot to Caearea Philippi to teach this message. The significance of this is that this place was world famous for a huge rock formation where a pagan temple stood. Other terms like the gates of hades used in the Matt 16 passage are attributed to a deep pool at the base of this rock. Thus Jesus used this place as a background for this teaching. You can visit this place today.
Then there is the reference to the keys of Isaiah 22 making it all but certain that Jesus was appointing Peter as the prime minister of the restored Davidic Kingdom.
I also know that the current consensus among biblical scholars and theologians, including Protestants is that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16. This doesn't put him above Jesus, nor does anyone claim this. All of them will have at least as much evidence as your author, yet they affirm Peter as the rock.
The linguistic arguments are interesting and helpful, but they don't prove anything conclusively and do nothing to change the understanding of Peter's role in the church. The rest of the biblical, historical and geographical evidence dwarfs the uncertainty of how a certain word was used.
I'm not exactly sure what your argument is.
Peter is a pebble?
His confession separate from his person is the rock.
Jesus is the rock? Of course Jesus is the rock, but in this context?
|
| bwellmysoul |
Posted - 05/31/2012 : 06:11:30
quote:
Originally posted by ftbond
Look... Nobody knows what Jesus said in Aramaic in Matt 16:18... That's the big problem. There are no "original Aramaic" copies that say "...you are Kepha, and upon this kepha..." - AND - there's none that say "...you are Kepha, and upon this shua..". The Catholics are DESPERATE to have Petros and petra mean the same thing, because their whole eccliastical structure depends on it. So, they'll manufacture all kinds of "assertions", but that's just the deal. They're only ASSERTIONS.
You need to check out http://www.freetowne.com/pppk for some good, serious, factual linguistic info on all this. It's not "protestant", it's not "anti-Catholic". It's just linguistic stuff.
You guys are going back and forth on stuff that you don't know about...
Your assertions are bizzare.
The Jews knew their Gospel before it was ever put on paper.
God had them eat, drink, breath, and work Himself into their lives & festivals.
Jesus drew out 12 men and they lived with Him for 3 years, during His ministry. These men, He ordained as His Apostles and He instituted His Church through them.
Jesus didn't need to tell them to write down His Gospel, these men lived His Gospel. If the Son of God told you and your group of buddies that one amoung you was "rock and upon this rock I will build My Church" would you remember His words the next day, the next week, the next year?
His Apostles passed His Gospel to His Church and they ordained men so that they would continue to pass on His Gospel across all generations.
The Gospels were writings used at Mass, in what Catholics call today The Liturgy of the Word, prior to receiving the Eucharist - which Sacred Scripture chronicles and the Early Church celebrated and passed down to all generations.
|
| ftbond |
Posted - 05/31/2012 : 01:18:20
Look... Nobody knows what Jesus said in Aramaic in Matt 16:18... That's the big problem. There are no "original Aramaic" copies that say "...you are Kepha, and upon this kepha..." - AND - there's none that say "...you are Kepha, and upon this shua..". The Catholics are DESPERATE to have Petros and petra mean the same thing, because their whole eccliastical structure depends on it. So, they'll manufacture all kinds of "assertions", but that's just the deal. They're only ASSERTIONS.
You need to check out http://www.freetowne.com/pppk for some good, serious, factual linguistic info on all this. It's not "protestant", it's not "anti-Catholic". It's just linguistic stuff.
You guys are going back and forth on stuff that you don't know about... |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 05/27/2012 : 13:22:30
Matthew 16:18 in the existing Aramaic texts show Kepha not Shua.
The text is available for all to see what a bald faced liar you are.
I won't ask you to admit the truth because you are not capable of that, I would not wish to put your soul in further peril.
You could not even admit the truth in the one place we agreed. You would rather contradict yourself than admit that a Catholic had anything right. |
| God4me |
Posted - 05/27/2012 : 11:14:39
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
G4, why do you lie so much. The Aramaic text is available for anyone to read. You can't just translate back from the English to what you think should be there.
The fact is that the text that the Aramaic speaking Christians have been using for nearly two thousand years has kepha not shua for what Christ built His church on.
Rewriting your own version of the Bible does not change this FACT.
[1]Read the below again.
If you notice, The only people that say Kepha is the rock that Jesus built His Church on, Is the catholics, And the people who got it from the catholics.
But the Bible, Aramaic and the Greek, All agree that Jesus never built His Church on Peter.
Proving it is just another catholic lie.
Matt 16: 18, In Aramaic,
"You are Kepha, And upon Shu"a", I will build My Church"..FACT
[2]The Aramaic is there for all to read, But there are two different Aramaic words for "Rock".
[A]The True one, Which is, "Shu"a", Which the Greek word, "Petra" is translated from.
[B]And the catholic one, Which they [Wrongly] say is, "Kepha".
Only the catholics are the people who got it from what the catholic say it is Kepha.
[3]What you mean is, The catholics have been saing it is "Kepha", For nearly 2000 years.
But catholics aren't Christians, And thet always get things wrong.
I am re-writing the truth about Matt 16: 18.
The catholics have to tell lies, about the meaning of the Rock, Because they know if they tell the truth, they'll have no fundamentle foundation for their pope's.
Thats why you can't admit the truth.
|
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 05/27/2012 : 07:50:41
G4, why do you lie so much. The Aramaic text is available for anyone to read. You can't just translate back from the English to what you think should be there.
The fact is that the text that the Aramaic speaking Christians have been using for nearly two thousand years has kepha not shua for what Christ built His church on.
Rewriting your own version of the Bible does not change this FACT. |
| God4me |
Posted - 05/27/2012 : 00:37:51
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
I wish that we could copy and paste text in Biblical languages with their original characters intact. I would love to copy and paste the Aramaic text and then bold kepha and have him try find "shua" to bold.
But alas, there is no point. He would learn nothing from it, and even the lurkers by now have figured him out.
If you notice, The only people that say Kepha is the rock that Jesus built His Church on, Is the catholics, And the people who got it from the catholics.
But the Bible, Aramaic and the Greek, All agree that Jesus never built His Church on Peter.
Proving it is just another catholic lie.
Matt 16: 18, In Aramaic,
"You are Kepha, And upon Shu"a", I will build My Church"..FACT
Matt 16: 18 in the Greek.
"You are Petros, And upon Petra, I will build My Church"..FACT
Matt 16: 18 in the Bible.
"You are Peter, And uopn this Rock, I will build My Church".
What Jesus DIDN'T say, Was,
"You are Peter and upon YOU I will build My Church"..DID HE??..NO.
Peter in the Greek.
2nd person, Plural in number...FACT
The Rock in the Greek.
3rd person, Singular in number. FACT
The Greek has to agree in person and number. FACT
Al this proves that Jesus never built His Church on Peter..FACT.
But we know the catholics are world famous for twisting the scriptures, Greek and the Aramaic...FACT.
It must be embasising to be a catholic. |
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 05/26/2012 : 15:16:13
Jesus was NOT likely speaking Greek when He named Peter. That may be the surest part in the NT.
Paul who was completely fluent in Greek having been educated in Tarsus with Luke the Physician, identified Peter as Cephas in his epistles that were written in Greek to people who spoke Greek.
Paul sometimes called Peter "Peter" too, which would be expected given that he was sent to the Greek speaking Gentiles. But, if the Apostles were all fluent in Greek and Paul was fluent in Greek and Jesus was teaching them in Greek, then we would not be seeing "Cephas" in the Greek NT in letters to Greek speaking recipients such as the churches in Corinth and Galatia.
The entire NT was nothing but oral tradition for the first few decades. It may be conjecture, but it works for me.
Either we trust that a culture that lived by oral tradition was good at it, and accept the power of the Holy Spirit to help in that regard, or we scrap the New Testament.
The Bible was in the Aramaic language very early on, well within the range of oral tradition to confirm. And even if we don't have the original texts, Jerome claims to have seen the original in a library. He did not use it for his translation to produce the Latin Vulgate, but did comment on it. He reported minor differences between the early Matthew and the Greek version - but not in that passage.
Papias confirmed that Matthew's "Oracles of the Lord" were not first in Greek. |
| God4me |
Posted - 05/26/2012 : 12:47:00
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
I was looking at the Aramaic text for the New Testament. In Matthew 16:18 the word "shua" is not used. It is not there in the text.
It does not matter what "shua" means because it isn't there.
What is there is "kepha", twice. So if kepha only means stone, then Jesus built His church on a stone. Because that is the word that is used. Kepha.
Let me repeat that for you. The Aramaic text for Matthew 16:18 does not have the word "shua" in it. It just is not there. Only "kepha" is used. Both for Peter and for what Jesus built His church on.
You have to say that, Because you know the truth proves you wrong.
It is obvious that you are looking at a catholic dictionary.
I have shown you the Biblical, Aramaic and Greek truth about
Mat 16: 18.
It is imposible for Jesus to have said He built His Church on Kepha.
Kepha/Cephas means a "Stone", See Jn 1: 42.
Whereas "Shua" means a rock. |
| ftbond |
Posted - 05/26/2012 : 10:10:57
also from http://www.freetowne.com/pppk ---
There is simply no way to verify at this time whether the writer of John chose to use the unique word "petros" as the translation of "kephas", or whether he chose to "masculinze" the word petra by adding an "os" masculine ending, because there are no known texts in which the writer of John explains what he meant.
Therefore, this Assertion remains conjecture.
As always, the Catholic position is based on conjecture
you guys ought to read the stuff on this site. It gets pretty in-depth. |
| ftbond |
Posted - 05/26/2012 : 10:04:15
from http://www.freetowne.com/pppk ---
Most scholars would agree that, in all likelihood, Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic during
his conversation with his Disciples as recorded in Matthew 16 (although, this has not been
without disupte). But, assuming that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, nobody knows for
certain what specific Aramaic words that Jesus would have used in that conversation, that in
Greek were rendered as "Petros" and "petra".
There is, to date, simply no known manuscript (such as an Aramaic version of Matthew from
the first century, for example) - or fragment of an early Aramaic (or Hebrew) manuscript
that, in itself, can prove this "Kepha...kepha" assertion to be true, and thus this
Assertion remains conjecture.
Most of the Catholic position is based entirely on CONJECTURE...
|
| Faith_at_Large |
Posted - 05/26/2012 : 07:24:12
I was looking at the Aramaic text for the New Testament. In Matthew 16:18 the word "shua" is not used. It is not there in the text.
It does not matter what "shua" means because it isn't there.
What is there is "kepha", twice. So if kepha only means stone, then Jesus built His church on a stone. Because that is the word that is used. Kepha.
Let me repeat that for you. The Aramaic text for Matthew 16:18 does not have the word "shua" in it. It just is not there. Only "kepha" is used. Both for Peter and for what Jesus built His church on. |
| God4me |
Posted - 05/25/2012 : 22:56:33
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
I wish that we could copy and paste text in Biblical languages with their original characters intact. I would love to copy and paste the Aramaic text and then bold kepha and have him try find "shua" to bold.
But alas, there is no point. He would learn nothing from it, and even the lurkers by now have figured him out.
No you wouldn't, You know it'll prove you wrong.
If you check up the Aramaic [Instead of telling lies], You see that,
"Kepha" is Aramaic for, "Stone", And "Shua", is Aramaic for, "Rock".
If you check the Greek [Instead of telling lies], You'll see that,
Petros is Greek for "Stone", See Jn 1: 42, And Petra is Greek for, "Rock".
If you read the Bible, You'll see that Jesus didn't build His church on Peter, Kepha'Cephas or Petros. |
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS