Can someone answer this objection to the Catholic understanding of John 20:21-23?

[Luke_K]

Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Now for the most confusing portion of this passage. Jesus uses a Greek verb, APHIEMI, for “forgive” two times. The first time He says “If you forgive” He uses an aorist active subjunctive tense. An aorist tense means an event occurred at some point in time. It would be like someone saying, “I dropped a coin today.” It is something that just happened. The second time Jesus uses APHIEMI, He changes the verb to a perfect passive indicative tense. This is significant. A perfect tense means something happened somewhere in past time and the results continue into the present time. It would be like saying, “I dropped a coin a week ago and it is still dropping today.” So we have a situation where a person drops a coin, but the coin has already been dropped and is still dropping.
The perfect tense in combination with the passive means someone did the action on the one forgiven. Who did the forgiving in time past before the apostles did anything? It was God! So in summary, there are two reasons to conclude that the apostles are not doing the forgiving. The sins were already forgiven in the past and they are still forgiven, and they were forgiven by God.
What was Jesus saying? He was simply saying the apostles would be declaring something that had already occurred. The apostles knew when God had forgiven a man or woman of sins. We can know this too. A man or woman is only forgiven by faith, that is, by trusting in Jesus Christ. 1 John 5:13 tells us that we can know we have eternal life - we can know that we are going to heaven. This occurs when we stop trying to do good deeds (Eph. 2:8-9) and just simply do nothing else but trust Jesus (1 John 3:23) to forgive all of our sins for all time (Heb. 10:10). For a true Christian, there is no future sin that God has not already been forgiven. The disciples could tell a person their sins were forgiven, but in reality forgiveness had already been granted by God through faith in Jesus. Only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:5-9). Jesus was not giving the apostles divine authority. Jesus was allowing them to help others know that their sins were forgiven, if in fact they trusted in Jesus. The apostles were stating something that had already occurred. The Greek text makes this very clear.

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

 

[Nicea325]

Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

Confession Implied

Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.

Such interpretations don’t account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining—nor do they account for the importance given to the utterance in John 20:21–23. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to “retain” sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be “retained.”

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” which he explained is required because “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:12–15).

If forgiveness really can be partial—not a once-for-all thing—how is one to tell which sins have been forgiven, which not, in the absence of a priestly decision? You can’t very well rely on your own gut feelings. No, the biblical passages make sense only if the apostles and their successors were given a real authority.

Still, some people are not convinced. One is Paul Juris, a former priest, now a Fundamentalist, who has written a pamphlet on this subject. The pamphlet is widely distributed by organizations opposed to Catholicism. The cover describes the work as “a study of John 20:23, a much misunderstood and misused portion of Scripture pertaining to the forgiveness of sins.” Juris mentions “two main schools of thought,” the Catholic and the Fundamentalist positions.

He correctly notes that “among Christians, it is generally agreed that regular confession of one’s sins is obviously necessary to remain in good relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?”

 

[MarcoPolo]

According to BlueLetterBible, the tense for APHIEMI is Second Aorist tense and Present. Neither seems to be defined as your friend said.



Another way to approach it is to concede your friend’s explanation of the Greek. According to your friend, since all sins were forgiven in the past by God, Jesus didn’t need to die and we don’t need to repent. He proves way too much in his quest to debunk priestly Confession.

There’s another angle on this I just heard in a recent master’s class, and I’ll post my notes from the professor if I find them.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I may just be confused, but the English is something like “if you forgive x’s sins, then x’s sins are forgiven.”

In my understanding his argument actually works in our favor: We have if [you perform an action at some point in time] then [that action is performed with effects that continue into the present time]. There is no implication in the English version at least, that the second performed was prior to the first and every implication that it was (casually) after it - why else the word “then”?

Or to put it in his coin language “the priest forgave a sin a week ago, and it is still forgiven in a way that extends to today.”

Could be a Greek thing that I should just leave to others, but I really see no justification for his conclusions at all, even based on his premises. Particularly, there is no reason that I see to assume that the second verb somehow precedes the first.

As for that last bit of his argument- that’d make the verse kind of stupid wouldn’t it? There would be no new information there, so why say such a thing that would lead the church into error for 1600 odd years until someone figured out what Christ really meant? And it’d also make Jesus a liar - if a disciple “could tell a person their sins were forgiven” but really the “forgiveness had already been granted by God through faith in Jesus”, then the disciple could see into the heart of man, which is reserved to God. And if he thinks that God gave that particular ability to the apostles, then the argument that God cannot give abilities humans don’t typically have to us - the “only God can forgive sins therefore priests can’t” argument - falls flat on it’s face by his own logic, without even resulting to the special nature of the priesthood.

 

[beth40n2]

John 20 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
[19] “The doors were shut”… The same power which could bring Christ’s whole body, entire in all its dimensions, through the doors, can without the least question make the same body really present in the sacrament; though both the one and the other be above our comprehension.

[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained

The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate. Protestants try all kinds of way to change the meaning. First of all the apostles were alone and the door was shut and locked…What Christ is said is only for them, not the general public (19). He breathed the spirit on them and they recieved the spirit…I would say that is ordination and he sent them out. But in (23) he gave them alone the power to forgive and retain.

 

[TimothyH]

And it all sounds like so much dancing on the head of a pin.

***But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth *to forgive sins"–he then said to the paralytic–“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matthew 9:6-8)

Matthew 9 tells us that the power to fogive sins had been given to men (plural), on earth.

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. (1 John 5:16)

1 John 5 likewise tells us that human beings can pray for and obtain forgiveness for other human beings as long as the sin is not mortal.

Do we even need to go to James 5?

-Tim-

 

[SonCatcher]

It would be more correct to say “whose sins you forgive (once) are forgiven (eternally).” it is not a past event but an eternal one.

Remember, though, that when a priest forgives, he does so “in the person of Jesus Christ.” So it is not a man doing the forgiving but God. In the East, confession takes place before an icon of Jesus so we are more mindful that forgiveness is His work.

EDIT:
One should note that the Apostles’ direct involvement is necessary here (by extension, their successors and appointed assistants/priests). Simple logic dictates they can only forgive sins they know about (thus, a priest cannot forgive future sins).

 

[mark_a]

According to BlueLetterBible, the tense for APHIEMI is Second Aorist tense and Present. Neither seems to be defined as your friend said.

http://oi55.tinypic.com/sm5ceb.jpg

Another way to approach it is to concede your friend’s explanation of the Greek. According to your friend, since all sins were forgiven in the past by God, Jesus didn’t need to die and we don’t need to repent. He proves way too much in his quest to debunk priestly Confession.

There’s another angle on this I just heard in a recent master’s class, and I’ll post my notes from the professor if I find them.

Man!! That’s thorough!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

It would be more correct to say “whose sins you forgive (once) are forgiven (eternally).” it is not a past event but an eternal one.

I think that was the essence of what my professor said.

Man!! That’s thorough!!

We are Catholics. We don’t shy from facing the truth.

 

[Church_Militant]

You might point out that they are not taking this in the context of the rest of the New Testament. See if the Bible studies from 2 of my blog articles will help.
Catholic Confession
Scriptures About Penance

 

[JonathonofOhio]

According to BlueLetterBible, the tense for APHIEMI is Second Aorist tense and Present. Neither seems to be defined as your friend said.

http://oi55.tinypic.com/sm5ceb.jpg

Another way to approach it is to concede your friend’s explanation of the Greek. According to your friend, since all sins were forgiven in the past by God, Jesus didn’t need to die and we don’t need to repent. He proves way too much in his quest to debunk priestly Confession.

There’s another angle on this I just heard in a recent master’s class, and I’ll post my notes from the professor if I find them.

Man!! That’s thorough!!

And it was the second post!..wow, SOMEONE was prepared to answer

I think this would be the best way to answer this person. They are clearly just trying to confuse people who are less knowledgeable so they can continue to distort the gospels.

 

[pablope]

Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

I will focus on this statement from which you quoted:

Who did the forgiving in time past before the apostles did anything? It was God!

It is still God today, acting through the priest.

In the OT, it was also God acting though intermediaries.

Cite the following:

Job 42:

7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.

Question: Why did God, who spoke directly to Eliphaz, not just forgive him directly? And why did God order him to go through Job?

Another one: 2Sam 12 (please read the whole chapter, will only cite this verse):

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”

Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the LORD, the son born to you will die.”

Question: Why did God send Nathan to David to confront him for his sin?

Here, King David admits his sin to Nathan, the prophet, and Nathan pronounces the absolution. This seems like a forerunner of the sacrament of confession, doesn’t it?

 

[pablope]

Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

I will focus on another quote from your link:

The sins were already forgiven in the past and they are still forgiven, and they were forgiven by God.

Ask them to cite the Bible verse for this statement. And ask them, then why do you need to confess?

Look at the account of the fall in Genesis 3:

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

From verse 11, God knew Adam had sinned, so here he asks the question and is actually asking Adam to confess what he had done. And verse 12 is Adam’s response…and his response actually makes the sin worse, he blames another, Eve, for him being disobedient. So instead of owning to his sin, or admitting the sin (confessing) which God was looking for, he blames another. So the result is disastrous.

Same with the Eve…when God asks Eve in v13, God knows Eve has sinned, God is asking Eve to own up to her disobedience. And you can see Eve’s response…she blames the serpent.

Ask them if they see in themselves Adam and Eve when they directly confess to God? Do they rationalize their sin? Second guess?

While God knew exactly what had happened and what sins had been committed, God still asks Adam and Eve [see Gen 3:11-14] what they had done. And you can see from Gen 3 what a disaster their responses are.

Again, when Cain kills Able in Gen 4:10, God asks Cain “What have you done?” God wants us to confess and it is therefore necessary for us to do so.

So where does the priest fit in? In Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant. In Lev. 5:5-6 it says, “When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.” Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.

 

[PJM]

=Luke K;8281533]Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

When we put in back into context the final verse is exceeding clear

*B]Jn.20:19-23 * "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week,[The Forst Pentecost Sunday] the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” **
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. **Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. **As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." *** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. … If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” ***

The fact that Christ begins this empowerment with “Peace BE WITH YOU!” and say’s it twice is HIGHLY signifiant… Confession/ Reconcillation is the Sacrament of “KNOWN forgiveness”; KNOWN PEACE of mind, heart and soul.

"As the Father SENT ME "so too I [God] send you…1. Jesus is speaking directly to His eleven remaining Apostles. 2. This is the Iniation of the Catholic Church [See John 14:16-17] 3. God sends them and commands them "In His Authority AND WITH His Powers AS GOD! This is confirmed in the next verse… Jesus breathed on them: “RECEIVE the Holy Spirit” [This is Also the instituation of the Sacrament of Confirmation]. and ONLY then, does he empower, and command them to have an active role in the forgiveness of sins.

For those who may not be aware this practice of using Priest as intermeditaries is a perfection of OT practices. In BOTH the OT and NT [now] it remains God who actually forgives the sins. The Catholic Priest gives God permission and on this Christ forgives or witholds forgiveness as one of his duties as Confessor.

** Lev. 5:5 **“When a man is guilty in any of these [sins] , he shall confess the sin he has committed,” Lev.4: 20,26, 31 “Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. …] And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. …And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasing odor to the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven". **

 

[Big_Dummy]

Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

I suggest you start by checking his “facts” agnist a well known greek scholar like AT Robertson

John 20:21
Even so send I you (kagw pempw uma). Jesus has often spoken of the Father’s sending him using both apostellw and pempw. Here he employs both words in practically the same sense. Jesus still bears the Commission of the Father (perfect active indicative). For this balanced contention (as … so) see Luke 6:57 ; Luke 10:15 . This is the first of the three commissions given by the Risen Christ (another on the mountain in Galilee ( Matthew 28:16-20 ; 1 Corinthians 15:6 ), another on the Mount of Olives ( Luke 24:44-51 ; Acts 1:3-11 ).

John 20:22
He breathed on them (enepushsen). First aorist active indicative of empusaw, late verb, here only in N.T. though eleven times in the LXX and in the papyri. It was a symbolic art with the same word used in the LXX when God breathed the breath of life upon Adam ( Genesis 2:7 ). It occurs also in Ezekiel 37:9 . See Christ’s promise in John 16:23 . Jesus gives the disciples a foretaste of the great pentecost. Receive ye the Holy Ghost (labete pneuma agion). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of lambanw. Note absence of article here (pneuma agion) though to pneuma to agion in John 14:26 . No real distinction is to be observed, for Holy Spirit is treated as a proper name with or without the article.

John 20:23
Whosesoever sins ye forgive (an tinwn aphte ta amartia). “If the sins of any ye forgive” (aphte, second aorist active subjunctive with an in the sense of ean), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with “retain” (krathte, present active subjunctive of kratew). They are forgiven (apewntai). **Perfect passive indicative **of apihmi, Doric perfect for apeintai. Are retained (kekrathntai). **Perfect passive indicative **of kratew. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right ( Mark 2:5-7 ). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In Matthew 16:19 ; Matthew 18:18 we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ’s love for men.

biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-20-21.html
biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-20-22.html
biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-20-23.html

Now that you captured the grammar, look for a Greek Grammar to check his interpretations.

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Greek+Grammar+online&pbx=1&oq=Greek+Grammar+online&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m3&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=891l2688l1l2922l11l9l0l0l0l0l328l1874l0.1.5.1l7l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1350c3a2e903cb66&biw=1024&bih=524

And, if you have Wuests’ New Testament, see how he translates those verses,

amazon.com/New-Testament-Expanded-Translation/dp/0802808824

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Luke K
Here is the argument concerning the passage in John where Jesus gives the apostles the power to forgive or retain sins:

Here is the link to source: neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read/r00027.html

Frankly, this just seems like a convoluted, desperate argument to me. But I don’t know how to directly respond to it, and someone sent it to me who doesn’t believe in going to priests for confession.

Here are some very important POINTS.

God gives humanity the Spiritual Gifts of Mind, intellect, FREEWILL all attached to our soul for the precise purpose of permitting all to FREELY choose there OWN way and HELL, or HIS WAY and Heaven [much harder BUT pay’s MUCH better in the end].

Isa.43 Verses 7,21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself ***that they might ***declare my praise.”

We “get adivce” from ONLY two sources. God [Grace and TRUE Wisdom, humility and RIGHT Understanding], or from Satan [Pride, envey , wrong and incorrect understanding].

The practice of using priest dates BACK at least to Moses and Aaron; and is carried forward in the NT as you correctly indicate.

Do not be ashamed to confess your sins, Sir. 4:26… **Lev. 5:5 **“When a man is guilty in any of these [sins] , he shall confess the sin he has committed,” Lev.4: 20,26, 31 “Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. …] And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. …And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasing odor to the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

Here is How Christ Perfected this practice and WHY Christ did it.

Because since Christ we live 'Under Grace" NOT simply the “Law” of our Forefathers. BECAUSE GOD HAS GIVEN US MORE [AND BETTER] GOD EXPECTS "MORE AND BETTER IN RETUEN and will not accept any less than what He Christ has made possible to us.

Here is the SIGNIFIANCE of what Christ choose to COMMAND!

John.20:19 to 23 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week,[the FIRST Pentecost] the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. ***As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ***… And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. … If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Never put out of your mind that ONLY Peter; ONLY the CC has been given by God ALL OF THE KEYS TO HEAVEN. [Mt. 16:19]

“Peace” is the Objective that Christ seeks for us; so much so that He proclaimes this TWICE! This PEACE [of mind, heart and SOUL] is the OBJECT and precise purpose of this Sacrament of “KNOWN FORGIVENESS” [not just hoped for for ASSUMED in GRAVE ERROR]…

"As the Father HAS so too I SEND YOU! [His Apostles] with GOd’s Power and God’s OWN Authority ="RECEIVE [ME] the Holy Spirit! …**Luke.9: 1 **“And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,”

To be clear: It REAMAINS GOD who actually forgives our sins!

HOWEVER NOW it is CONDITIONAL on Christ Catholic PRiest to Give God permission “the go ahead”] to do so … WHY?

Because in additional to GRANTING REMISSION the priest is trained to councel us on how to [IF WE LISTEN] commit fewer sins in the furture. AND in place of the OT “sacrifie” the priest gives us a PENNANCE to preform as our PERSOANL Sacrifice to God as attonement AND and THANKSGIVNING!

DO NOT DEAR FRIENDS, BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO ASSUME YOU KNOW MORE, OR KNOW BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF WHOSE SACRAMENT THIS IS AND WHOSE SACRAMENT AND COMMAND HIS CC OBEYS!

Hell is real as is ETERNITY. WE DECIDE, Not God where WE will spend it.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Slowlearner]

Silly question maybe, but: Do we believe that Jesus spoke Greek when he said these words?

 

[PJM]

=Slowlearner;8313137]Silly question maybe, but: Do we believe that Jesus spoke Greek when he said these words?

No, Jesus spoke in Aramaic; He may have at least Some understanding of Greek? Why?

 

[Slowlearner]

No, Jesus spoke in Aramaic; He may have at least Some understanding of Greek? Why?

I ask because that is a first point to make in answer to the argument set forth in the original post. In other words, in addition to points made above, you could say:

“As a preliminary matter, I must note an error in the argument of ____. He states, “Jesus used the Greek word ____.” This is not correct. Jesus spoke aramaic, not Greek as that was the language of Israel at the time. Of course we should carefully consider the Greek words chosen by the gospel author to translate and record Jesus’ teaching, but we should get this error cleared up at first.”

I my mind it affects the credibility of the person making the argument if they incorrectly state what language Jesus spoke. No good biblical scholar would make that error.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Silly question maybe, but: Do we believe that Jesus spoke Greek when he said these words?

None of us were there, so it would be an agrument from silence, just speculation.

But, we do have the inspired word, written in Greek.