Peter petra petros kepha
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/19/2012
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/pppkThe site just gives some pretty in-depth info, and actually gives source info and reference material, etc... more...
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
G4Me,
The online Aramaic website doesn't write "shua", it writes "keepa".
You are a fabricator of lies, coyote attacks on character and clearly not a Christian example of charity (from your thoughts, your words and your deeds).
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
Here is more proof that Petra and Petros aren't the same meaning.
In the Greek, The persons' and numbers have to agree.
And Peter, "Petros", Is the 2nd person and plural in number.
The "Rock That Jesus built His Church on", Is.
"Petra", The 3rd person, singular in number.
So, You can see that Petra doen't agree with Petros.
Here again is our resident greek scholar and doctor of theology claiming nouns convey person independent of the address and that “You are Peter” is somehow plural and that indirect address is equivalent to third person.
Three basic grammar errors that have nothing to do with theology.
G4, Do you understand what makes an address first, second or third person?
Do you understand that “You are Peter” is not plural? If you persist in stating this, you must not even know the difference between singular and plural. How many You’s and Peter’s is Jesus addressing?
If the English translation isn’t clear enough for you, look at the Greek text. Every one of these words is singular (You are Peter). It doesn’t say “you all are pebbles”
My kids learned the difference no later than second grade.
But when you are perfect and beyond correction, 1 + 1 = anything you say it does.
For your information,
“You are Peter/Petros” is second person singular.
“And on this petra” is indirect address (not the same as third person) and singular.
So the rule (which you don’t know how to properly apply anyway) doesn’t even have a starting point.
There is nothing to debate here. Sorry doctor, but you are just flat out wrong on the grammar fundamentals on a level that is frankly embarrassing. Yet you persist????
You are either showing your ignorance about the Greek, Or you are just down right dishonest.
Either way, I wouldn't post any more if I was you,
To save anymore embarisment.
If you can't even acknowledge your basic grammar problems, you have a serious issue with pride and honesty that you apparently are not able to overcome. Your solution is to basically tell everyone to shut up and your all going to hell......
Let's just cut to the chase and please answer these questions for everyone to see.
Does a noun by itself convey person?
You have made the claim that nouns do convey person.
Is "You are petros" singular or plural?
You have claimed that it is plural.
Does indirect address equate to third person address?
You have claimed that it does.
Please just answer these simple yes/no questions about basic grammar.
You are either showing your ignorance about the Greek, Or you are just down right dishonest.
Either way, I wouldn't post any more if I was you,
To save anymore embarisment.
Not only do you avoid directly answering the questions, I see you used the same errors again.
Don't worry, I realize that someone who can't acknowledge grammar fundamentals is incapable of holding any kind of meaninigful discussion. I have nothing more to say to you except to seek God's will and not your own.
I wish you well.
I have shown you the Biblical and Greek facts, But it is imposible to make a catholic believe the Bible or the Greek.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
You showed us the Aramaic website, and it openly contradicted you.
In bold red lettering.
Edited by bwellmysoul on 05/24/2012 12:57:47
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
You showed us the Aramaic website, and it openly contradicted you.
In bold red lettering.
Neither the Araaic, Greek nor the Bible have contradicted me.
STOP TELLING LIES.
It's a good job you are already going to hell.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
bewell.. the same thing happened when g4 claimed he knew greek.. he got spanked so bad on it.. was practically taken by the neck and had his nose pushed into the truth and still came away trying to say he was right and the greek scholars were wrong... whatever. it's pointless trying to convince someone that wants to believe a lie that bad. i just feel sorry for the guy and pray for him cause i think he has some head problems...
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
bewell.. the same thing happened when g4 claimed he knew greek.. he got spanked so bad on it.. was practically taken by the neck and had his nose pushed into the truth and still came away trying to say he was right and the greek scholars were wrong... whatever. it's pointless trying to convince someone that wants to believe a lie that bad. i just feel sorry for the guy and pray for him cause i think he has some head problems...
STOP TELLING LIES, YOU EVIL MAN, I even shown you catholic where your so-called Greek sourse was wrong..And you catholic had no answear to it, Because you were shown the truth by ME.GET IT RIGHT.
What you mean is, I HAVE WHIPPED AND SPANKED YOU WITH THE SCRIPTURES AND THE GREEK...GET IT RIGHT.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 10/13/2007
Location: USA
No, g4, I believe mike had it right. You don't know Greek. In fact, you are apparently so unlearned that everything is "Greek to you" (You know, the old idiom that means something is incomprehensible). There's not a Catholic conspiracy against you or anything. In your terminology, anyone with one eye and half a brain can tell that you have no idea what in the world you are talking about. It's sad, really. You have devoted your life to something you are too lazy to research. Then you have the nerve to call those of us that do invest time into gaining knowledge "gormless", "bone idle" and the like. Seriously,wake up, man. Or at least, quit talking all that hateful smack in your sleep. It was fun for a while, but I, for one am tired of your little false facade of wisdom.
"Be good, keep your feet dry, your eyes open, your heart at peace and your soul in the joy of Christ." - Thomas Merton
www.percalamus.com
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
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.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by acumenCry
No, g4, I believe mike had it right. You don't know Greek. In fact, you are apparently so unlearned that everything is "Greek to you" (You know, the old idiom that means something is incomprehensible). There's not a Catholic conspiracy against you or anything. In your terminology, anyone with one eye and half a brain can tell that you have no idea what in the world you are talking about. It's sad, really. You have devoted your life to something you are too lazy to research. Then you have the nerve to call those of us that do invest time into gaining knowledge "gormless", "bone idle" and the like. Seriously,wake up, man. Or at least, quit talking all that hateful smack in your sleep. It was fun for a while, but I, for one am tired of your little false facade of wisdom.
Of cause you would say that, You catholic tell lies.
I cannot believe anything that you catholics will ever say, You have lied about the Bible, the Greek and me.
I have proved from the Bible and the Greek that the catholic teachings are wrong, But you still believe the catholic con-men and
the pope's porkies.
So you catholics are either very dopey, Or down right dishonest.
catholic are world famous for twisting the Bible & Greek, and teaching the devils doctrines.
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
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.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
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.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/19/2012
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...
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 05/19/2012
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.
-
-
- -1213reputation
- 6673 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
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.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
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.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS