Did Jesus start a Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrift
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elvisman;7583389]**You lose by default **because you refuse to accept that they spoke Aramaic - not Greek. What language it was spoken in and WHO it was spoken to has great bearing on the meaning.
Show me where I said Jesus didn’t speak Aramaic?
Show me where I refuse to accept it?
You can’t because I never said such a thing.
Because you sound angry and frustrated.
Angry NO frustrated POSSIBLY because of some of the posters here and you know who I’m talking about.
 
Show me where I said Jesus didn’t speak Aramaic?
Show me where I refuse to accept it?
You can’t because I never said such a thing.
**You DO refuse to accept it. If you didn’t, you *wouldn’t *keep bringing up the ridiculous Petros/Petra argument. You would simply accept the Fact that Jesus called him KEPHA (Aramaic). **

That’s why Paul calls him Cephas, which is a transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic Kepha. The reason many Protestants have a hard time accepting the Aramaic is that they lose their entire argument about what Jesus meant in Matt.16:16-19. He built the Church upon Peter.
Angry NO frustrated POSSIBLY because of some of the posters here and you know who I’m talking about.
There is no reason to get angry or frustrated. There are a few posters on this forum who used to get me angray and frustrated until I realized how silly that was. You just have to let it roll off your back.
 
Anyone care to join me in a rousing rendition of Kev’s favorite tune…
Round and round the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel…

Elvisman is absolutely right again…Kevin you lose this argument from any angle you want to try it. Didn’t you come to terms with this idea in the last thread, or do you simply have a pathological need to play the Devil’s Advocate…
Jesus’ use of*** petros and petra side by side has been called ‘a play on words.’* Our Lord placed the word petra alongside the word*** petros*** deliberately and His disciples understood what He meant by petra for He had used this word once before in teaching His disciples and the multitudes, using it with a meaning that was unmistakable to them.

The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or rolling." The word rock is petra, which means “a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring.” *

The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek.* Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immovable rock.

The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and** petra in the feminine,*** proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

Let us quote the text again:** “I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). The text indi*cates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.**

Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20) “He is the Rock, His work is perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).

If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not pre*vail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn’t he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders” (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.

If Jesus would have built His church on Peter,*** petros***, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Long before Jesus was born He was considered the Rock. Isaiah declares: “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cor*nerstone, a sure foundation” (Isaiah 28:16). Peter applies this prophecy to Christ. He wrote: “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief Cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded” (1 Peter 2:6). David said: “Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I” (Psalm 61:2) (Douay, Psalm 60:3).
 
although there is some evidence which suggests Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic. All trace of this is lost however, and we only have the Greek manuscripts available.
That strikes me as rather non sequitur. So what if all we have available are the Greek translations? If the Greek versions all disappeared, and all we had were the English versions (using “rock” in each instance), would the petros/petra argument cease to be valid once more? I don’t see your point, here.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
elvisman;7583457]You DO refuse to accept it. If you didn’t, you *wouldn’t *keep bringing up the ridiculous Petros/Petra argument. You would simply accept the Fact that Jesus called him KEPHA (Aramaic).
I’m not refusing to accept it, the problem is, I quess, the translation where it states different. Well all I can depend on is the way the Bible is written today because when the Bible was written the HS was with them so who’s to say the HS wasn’t with those who translated the Bible from one language to another. I don’t think the HS would let these mistakes happen during the translations.
 
That strikes me as rather non sequitur. So what if all we have available are the Greek translations? If the Greek versions all disappeared, and all we had were the English versions (using “rock” in each instance), would the petros/petra argument cease to be valid once more? I don’t see your point, here.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
I don’t see the Greek translations disappearing. Not with todays technology. :rolleyes:
 
What does it matter, Kevin? It wasn’t SPOKEN in Greek. The Bible doesn’t ever mention Jesus having written one, single word. It doesn’t ever mention Jesus telling his disciples to write down one, single word.
You lose the argument by default.

I realize that this fact is very discomforting to you because it is an argument that you cannot possibly win. History, linguistics and Biblical scholarship are ALL against you, my* angry* friend.
Are some willingly adopting inaccurate translations to support their separation from the One True Church?

Yes.
 
RedDawgMCM;7583501]Anyone care to join me in a rousing rendition of Kev’s favorite tune…
Round and round the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel…
I love to see the love portrayed here, Christians treating other Christians like they are nothing, Man I wish I was Catholic so I could be just as nice but then again I would have to give up, being nice to people, treating them as a equal in God’s eyes. Now I would be able to say what I want about someone and make fun of them for my entertainment. Nah I think I’ll stay what I am and treat others with respect and kindness. Maybe you should give it a try.
Elvisman is absolutely right again…Kevin you lose this argument from any angle you want to try it. Didn’t you come to terms with this idea in the last thread, or do you simply have a pathological need to play the Devil’s Advocate…
NO I didn’t and no I don’t.
 
I’m not refusing to accept it, the problem is, I quess, the translation where it states different. Well all I can depend on is the way the Bible is written today because when the Bible was written the HS was with them so who’s to say the HS wasn’t with those who translated the Bible from one language to another. I don’t think the HS would let these mistakes happen during the translations.
It’s not a “mistake” - it’s just that we know by the fact that Jesus was speaking Aramaic at the time, that the “petros” argument does not hold, because the only way it has any bearing is if Jesus had been speaking a particular dialect of ancient Greek (which was not known or used in the time of Jesus, nor in the time of the translator of Matthew’s Gospel - it’s like someone claiming that the President of the United States in the year 2011 made a speech in pre-Napoleonic French to the Senate in which the word “Barack” means “a small boat” and that therefore, they were calling the President a small boat, thus showing that he has no particular authority in the government) - it’s just so extremely unlikely as to be absurd.
 
It’s not a “mistake” - it’s just that we know by the fact that Jesus was speaking Aramaic at the time, that the “petros” argument does not hold, because the only way it has any bearing is if Jesus had been speaking a particular dialect of ancient Greek (which was not known or used in the time of Jesus, nor in the time of the translator of Matthew’s Gospel - it’s like someone claiming that the President of the United States in the year 2011 made a speech in pre-Napoleonic French to the Senate in which the word “Barack” means “a small boat” and that therefore, they were calling the President a small boat, thus showing that he has no particular authority in the government) - it’s just so extremely unlikely as to be absurd.
Jesus had a choice: Leave either a bible, or someone in charge. Since he knew the future, he left someone in charge.
 
It’s not a “mistake” - it’s just that we know by the fact that Jesus was speaking Aramaic at the time, that the “petros” argument does not hold, because the only way it has any bearing is if Jesus had been speaking a particular dialect of ancient Greek (which was not known or used in the time of Jesus, nor in the time of the translator of Matthew’s Gospel - it’s like someone claiming that the President of the United States in the year 2011 made a speech in pre-Napoleonic French to the Senate in which the word “Barack” means “a small boat” and that therefore, they were calling the President a small boat, thus showing that he has no particular authority in the government) - it’s just so extremely unlikely as to be absurd.
Jesus had a choice: Leave either a bible, or someone in charge. Since he knew the future, he left someone in charge.
**Thank you BOTH for taking the words right out of my mouth . . . :rolleyes:
 
Are some willingly adopting inaccurate translations to support their separation from the One True Church?

Yes.
**Since when is Kepha a bad translation of Aramaic? It means large massive boulder - any way you slice it. **

As I pointed out earlier - that’s why Paul refers to Peter as “Cephas” in his letters.
 
Originally Posted by elvisman
What does it matter, Kevin? It wasn’t SPOKEN in Greek. The Bible doesn’t ever mention Jesus having written one, single word. It doesn’t ever mention Jesus telling his disciples to write down one, single word.
Um, yeah…this isn’t helping me understand at all. In fact, it’s only making it worse. We are being told we have to believe something that wasn’t written by Jesus, and was written without his instructions to do so. I’m not really sure how one can conclude that RevKen (or me) lose based on the above because, I don’t know about RevKev, but for me, it opened up a whole new can of worms. 🤷
 
I love to see the love portrayed here, Christians treating other Christians like they are nothing, Man I wish I was Catholic so I could be just as nice but then again I would have to give up, being nice to people, treating them as a equal in God’s eyes. Now I would be able to say what I want about someone and make fun of them for my entertainment. Nah I think I’ll stay what I am and treat others with respect and kindness. Maybe you should give it a try.
I wasn’t attempting to not treat you as an equal, I just have grown tired of your Google arguments, most of which are and have been easily refuted.

Has anyone ever told you, you play the martyr quite well…
NO I didn’t and no I don’t.
My mistake I seem to remember Benedictus and you dancing around this one…multiple times before you bowed out from this line of thinking.
 
Guess I killed this thread…sorry everyone…

Mea Culpa Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa
 
po18guy;:
Jesus said “I found my Church.”
The word used there is “εκκλησιαν” or transliterated “eclesia”, which comes from “καλέω”, which is a calling out. εκκλησιαν refers to people, not an institution. An assembly, or a congregation. “Church” as a translation works, only when it is considered to be the people, and not the institution.

jonathon
 
jmcrae;:
How could He have created the Church “unintentionally”
He did not create it. Man created it. Its creation was a side-effect of the corruption of His message by His followers.
it was a Pope who infallibly defined the canon of the Scriptures
If you are willing to recognise the first post-Acts council that was held, and hold to what it declared to be canonical, I’ll concede that point. However, if you do accept that council, you will be accepting a council that the Catholic Church rejected in tota.
even if you are going by Scripture alone, you are still relying on the authority of the Church, to know what is (or is not) Scripture.
No Catholic Pope ever acknowledged the Peshitta as being the totality of the New Testament. Nor did any Catholic Pope endorse the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Narrrower Canon). Those are just two canons that did not get sanction from Rome. There are others.

jonathon
 
elvisman;:
insist that Jesus spoke Greek to his Apostles. He didn’t
We don’t know what languages — note the plural — that Jesus communicated in. Its pretty obvious He could speak Hebrew, and Aramaic. Greek isn’t quite so obvious, but can’t be ruled out, because it was the language of commerce and trade.
What Jesus actually told Peter - in ARAMAIC - was “. . . you are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my Church . . .” There is no distinction between the 2 uses of the word in the Aramaic language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke.
Michigan-Clairmont Transliteration of the Aramaic

(Mat 16:18 Peshitta-T)
)P )N) )MR )N) LK D)NT HW K)P) W(L HD) K)P) )BNYH L(DTY WTR() D$YWL L) NXSNWNH

And the Aramaic from the Peshitta.
Mat 16:18 ܐܦ ܐܢܐ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܕܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܟܐܦܐ ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܟܐܦܐ ܐܒܢܝܗ ܠܥܕܬܝ ܘܬܪܥܐ ܕܫܝܘܠ ܠܐ ܢܚܤܢܘܢܗ ܀

If Aramaic were the original, why would the pun be in the Greek, but not the Aramaic? It isn’t like there aren’t other passages where the Aramaic pun is also found in the Greek.
the Gospel of Matthew having been originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.
The more usual hypothesis is that it was written in Hebrew, and translated into Greek. Regardless, the language(s) that the audience used don’t tell us much, if anything about the language(s) He used.

OTOH, if you are trying to push Aramaic Primacy…
The Bible doesn’t ever mention Jesus having written one, single word.
What the Bible does not mention, is what the word that he wrote in the sand was.

jonathon
 
rev kevin;:
I don’t think the HS would let these mistakes happen during the translations.
Ever read The New World Translation?
Alternatively, The Joseph Smith Translation?
If not, read either, or both of them. You might reconsider your position.

OTOH, your conclusion might be that they weren’t inspired by the HS in the first place.

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top