R
RNRobert
Guest
My, my, we certainly are anti-Catholic, aren’t we. You wouldn’t happen to be a Seventh-Day Adventist by any chance, would you?
- Status
B
Buzzard
Guest
RNRobert said:
Buzz Replies
No, Matthew is not wrong;
just the interpretation you accept
Buzz RepliesRNRobert said:
Thats true;
He didn’t give them to anyone;
if he did, for one reason or the other,
he took them back,
for John says Christ still has the keys,
~{Revelation 3:7}~
Robert there are Two {2} Keys in Scripture
Key of Knowledge of the Kingdom
~{Matt.13:10}~
And the disciples came, and said unto him,
Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them,
Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven
Key to the Kingdom
Peter and the Apostles were given the 1st
not the 2nd
[/quote]
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=315921&postcount=35
Post #35
DavidFilmer:
but elsewhere as well,
for the Papacy and Rome Stands or falls on “Who” is the Rock
Christ or Peter
~{Matt.7:24}~
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:
-{or}-
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Peter, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Take your pick
Post #35
Oh; I’m sure it has been discussed no end, not only on this forum
but elsewhere as well,
for the Papacy and Rome Stands or falls on “Who” is the Rock
Christ or Peter
~{Matt.7:24}~
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:
-{or}-
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Peter, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Take your pick
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear Buzzard:
I enjoy reading your posts, and I am thankful that Protestant brothers and sisters come to this board. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will soften your hearts and lead you more deeply into the fullness of Christian faith. I will keep praying for you.
I indicated that a confession or revelation is never referred to in scriptures as a rock, and then you countered with Matt 7:24. However, please read the parables more carefully. Jesus is not referring to anyone’s confession or revelation as being a rock. He is not even referring to His own words as being rock. Instead, he is talking about the man who either does or does not obey Him. Rock in this parable therefore references the stability of our obedience to Jesus’s commands. To use ROCK as a reference for STABILITY in a metaphor is appropriate, and this is probably the reason why Jesus changed Peter’s name to ROCK (Kepha); likewise, this is also why Jesus chose to build His Church on Peter. Jesus thus becomes the WISE MAN he himself refers to in Matt 7.
I find it a little strange that some non-Catholics, in a further effort to distort the plain meaning of Matt 16:16-18 will sometimes insist that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock. If that is truly the case, then Our Lord never had a very strong grasp of logic. How could He be both the Builder and the Rock. As far as I am aware, Rocks don’t build anything!!
I will continue to pray for you Buzzard.
Your brother in Christ
Fiat
I enjoy reading your posts, and I am thankful that Protestant brothers and sisters come to this board. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will soften your hearts and lead you more deeply into the fullness of Christian faith. I will keep praying for you.
I indicated that a confession or revelation is never referred to in scriptures as a rock, and then you countered with Matt 7:24. However, please read the parables more carefully. Jesus is not referring to anyone’s confession or revelation as being a rock. He is not even referring to His own words as being rock. Instead, he is talking about the man who either does or does not obey Him. Rock in this parable therefore references the stability of our obedience to Jesus’s commands. To use ROCK as a reference for STABILITY in a metaphor is appropriate, and this is probably the reason why Jesus changed Peter’s name to ROCK (Kepha); likewise, this is also why Jesus chose to build His Church on Peter. Jesus thus becomes the WISE MAN he himself refers to in Matt 7.
I find it a little strange that some non-Catholics, in a further effort to distort the plain meaning of Matt 16:16-18 will sometimes insist that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock. If that is truly the case, then Our Lord never had a very strong grasp of logic. How could He be both the Builder and the Rock. As far as I am aware, Rocks don’t build anything!!
I will continue to pray for you Buzzard.
Your brother in Christ
Fiat
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=315932&postcount=38
Post #38
DavidFilmer:
Maybe a little sarcasism;
I find it hard to beleive the “language of the Hebrews” would be Aramaic and the sign hung over Christ written in the three languages spoken and written in Palistine
Greek, Hebrew and Latin but failed to put it in the common speech
maybe when Josephus specifically tells us that Matthew’s Gospel was written in "the language of the Hebrews
he was refering to; wellllllllllll, Hebrew
Matthew might be, (and probably is) the ONLY New Testament book that was written in Hebrew
for we think all the rest was or were written in the Greek
Post #38
Maybe a little sarcasism;
I find it hard to beleive the “language of the Hebrews” would be Aramaic and the sign hung over Christ written in the three languages spoken and written in Palistine
Greek, Hebrew and Latin but failed to put it in the common speech
maybe when Josephus specifically tells us that Matthew’s Gospel was written in "the language of the Hebrews
he was refering to; wellllllllllll, Hebrew
Matthew might be, (and probably is) the ONLY New Testament book that was written in Hebrew
for we think all the rest was or were written in the Greek
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=315961&postcount=40
Post #40
RNRobert:
#2:
Seventh Day Adventist???
No, but I do hold some things in common
William Miller’s failed message was a fulfillment of the Parable
but that is another thread
Post #40
Nope; in fact most of the, shall we say “devote” are Catholic
#2:
Seventh Day Adventist???
No, but I do hold some things in common
William Miller’s failed message was a fulfillment of the Parable
ahhhhhhh;
but that is another thread
M
Maccabees
Guest
Scripture is indicating Abraham as being the Rock in the context I am talking about but you simpleton mind can’t handle the overload that God is the Rock and Abraham is the rock. WE don’t deny the possiblity of both becuase scripture says its both. But you deny the plain words of scritpure.
**Isaiah 51
**Israel Exhorted
1
"(1) Listen to me, you who (2) pursue righteousness,
Who seek the LORD:
Look to the (3) rock from which you were hewn
And to the quarry from which you were dug.
2
"Look to (4) Abraham your father
And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain;
He is talking about Abraham being their rock and their father in the context of this passage. Of course elswehere God is father and the rock that is not our dispute just becuase God is our father and Rock does not disqualify as Abraham being our father and rock in another context.
Look to Abraham the rock and father if you don’t understand this.
I sincerely doubt your intellectual honesty. The Lord doesn’t mention himself he mentions Abraham he is not talking about faith here he is talking about a particular person as being the rock and father of His People. Anything you come up with is unconvincing spin.
B
Buzzard
Guest
Are you joking or did you not really know
M
Maccabees
Guest
You are the one who must be kidding you are throwing Bible verses around without a context neither mention Abraham or Sarah. Neither mention Rock or Fatherhood which is the the subject of contention here, you seem to forgot that. You are playing with your concordance instead of dealing with the facts the verse presented. You ignore Isiah and throw back your bible verses you ignore Matthew and throw back some Bible verses. Hermaneutics is dealing with the passage in context not playing Bible tennis ignoring the verses you don’t like and only concentraign on the single interpretation of the verses you do like. Your stuck in a deep case of fundamentalism and can’t seem to see through the fog. Do me a favor and don’t become some fundy pastor prmosing healings and 10 to one odds on one tithes. I am sure you will play with verses to make yourself a very stange brand of religion.
B
Buzzard
Guest
you are the one trying to make Abraham “the Rock” of vs 1
if that is so,
then Sarah must be the “Hole in a Pit” of vs 1
I just don’t really think that is so
Now, rock is dug from a Pit, and if Sarah is the pit
then Abraham was dug from Sarah
and that just isn’t so
Just in case you didn’t know it
Abraham was one of the Prophets
and Sarah was the “Mother of the Promised Son”
that would be Isaac
from which came Easu and Jacob
now lets go back to my referances
Abraham was one of the Prophets
~{Proverbs 9:1}~
Wisdom hath builded her house,
she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
~{Hosea 6:5}~
Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets;
I have slain them by the words of my mouth:
if that is so,
then Sarah must be the “Hole in a Pit” of vs 1
I just don’t really think that is so
Now, rock is dug from a Pit, and if Sarah is the pit
then Abraham was dug from Sarah
and that just isn’t so
Just in case you didn’t know it
Abraham was one of the Prophets
and Sarah was the “Mother of the Promised Son”
that would be Isaac
from which came Easu and Jacob
now lets go back to my referances
Abraham was one of the Prophets
~{Proverbs 9:1}~
Wisdom hath builded her house,
she hath hewn out her seven pillars:
~{Hosea 6:5}~
Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets;
I have slain them by the words of my mouth:
A
Aris
Guest
I think you have forgotten your initial post.
Isaiah 22: What does it say?
Does it refer to Jesus? Could be. And so what should be the conclusion?
Does it refer to a different person? Most probably.
Jesus is of the House of David.
Eliakim, who was he? Wasn’t he the Prime minister and not of the House of David?
Isaiah 22: What does it say?
Does it refer to Jesus? Could be. And so what should be the conclusion?
Does it refer to a different person? Most probably.
Jesus is of the House of David.
Eliakim, who was he? Wasn’t he the Prime minister and not of the House of David?
F
Fiat
Guest
Buzzard:
I guess I’m not really following what your interpretation of Isa 51:1 is. The verse says, “Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried.” Verse 2 says, “Look to Abraham.” Why do you think the latter part of verse 1 necessarily describes Sarah. Whether a rock is “hewn out of” or still connected to the quarry, is inconsequential. The substance of rock is still rock, regardless of its size. Essentially, the prophet is still speaking of the ROCK of ancestry which comes from Abraham and Sarah…
Are you trying to suggest that the rock is not the referrent to which the metaphor refers?
Your brother in Christ,
Fiat
I guess I’m not really following what your interpretation of Isa 51:1 is. The verse says, “Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried.” Verse 2 says, “Look to Abraham.” Why do you think the latter part of verse 1 necessarily describes Sarah. Whether a rock is “hewn out of” or still connected to the quarry, is inconsequential. The substance of rock is still rock, regardless of its size. Essentially, the prophet is still speaking of the ROCK of ancestry which comes from Abraham and Sarah…
Are you trying to suggest that the rock is not the referrent to which the metaphor refers?
Your brother in Christ,
Fiat
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Ahhh, Buzzard, may I offer a few points to which I am sure you will have an answer, although
God Bless Us All!
- Is it your contention that Peter did not receive the name “Kepha” from our Lord Jesus Christ? Because if you deny that, you deny Holy Scripture (John 1:42, along with several passages in 1 Corinthians and Galations) All studies I have seen equate Cephas with the aramaic “Kepha”.
- Isaiah 51 plainly refers to Abraham as the “rock”. If we are seeking the Lord, we are asked to LOOK TO something (the rock from which we were hewn). A reader might then ask “say what? What do you mean?” Then the passage further explains what that rock is…“LOOK TO… who? …ABRAHAM”.
- Isaiah 22 is so powerful, that your brain forces you to twist and misinterpret it, otherwise the ramifications are just too much to handle… I think I can understand where you’re at, Buzz. Hang around here a little longer trying to “straighten us out”. It will eventually have its effect on you, I believe.
God Bless Us All!
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=319845&postcount=52
Post #52
color by Buzz
Kurt G.:
that Christ spoke Aramaic
its nothing but “Theological Doublespeak Spin”
put forth by those that have preconceived opinions and have went forth looking for something to support that view,
it is unfortunate that many Protestants have fallen for the
“Flattery of her Words”
~{Proverbs 2:16}~
To deliver thee from the strange woman,
even from the stranger
“which flattereth with her words”
17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth,
and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
so don’t bother referancing the 100s of quotes from them
I’ve read most of them,
to agree Peter is the Rock the church was built upon, and remain outside
Now that is the height of Hypocrisy,
and I put no faith in Hypocrites
But then again, Matthew wrote it in the Greek,
and he full well knew what Christ saith
spoken in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic
so the point is mote anyway
Post #52
color by Buzz
Kurt G.:
Yes; I have seen nothing that even comes close to convincing me
that Christ spoke Aramaic
its nothing but “Theological Doublespeak Spin”
put forth by those that have preconceived opinions and have went forth looking for something to support that view,
it is unfortunate that many Protestants have fallen for the
“Flattery of her Words”
~{Proverbs 2:16}~
To deliver thee from the strange woman,
even from the stranger
“which flattereth with her words”
17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth,
and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
so don’t bother referancing the 100s of quotes from them
I’ve read most of them,
to agree Peter is the Rock the church was built upon, and remain outside
Now that is the height of Hypocrisy,
and I put no faith in Hypocrites
But then again, Matthew wrote it in the Greek,
and he full well knew what Christ saith
spoken in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic
so the point is mote anyway
B
Buzzard
Guest
Kurt G.:
“Pit” Strongs #953 means something worthless
prison, of no value, grave, without hope
Isaiah uses it as such
~{Is.14:15}~
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
…
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
that go down to the stones of the pit
~{Is.24:22}~
And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit,
~{Is. 38:18}~
[/font=times] For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee:
they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth
David uses the same word to say
~{Ps.9:15}~
The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made:
~{Ps.40:2}~
He brought me up also out of an horrible pit,
out of the miry clay,
and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.
3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth,
even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear,
and shall trust in the LORD.
~{Ps.143:7}~
Hear me speedily, O LORD: my spirit faileth:
hide not thy face from me,
lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.
8 Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning;
for in thee do I trust:
cause me to know the way wherein I should walk;
for I lift up my soul unto thee.
~{Zech.11:9}~
As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth
thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
The Pit in the New Testament
~{Luke 6.39}~
He also told them this Parable;
Can a blind man lead a blind man?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
—{Symbolical of Error / Falsehood / Deception / False Teachers}–
A student is not above his teacher,
But everyone who is fully trained
Will be like his teacher
~{Deut.32:3}~
Because I will publish the name of the LORD:
ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect:
for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children:
they are a perverse and crooked generation.
6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise?
is not he thy father that hath bought thee?
hath he not made thee, and established thee?
~{Deut.32:18}~
Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful,
~{James 1:18}~
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,
There we see he is “the Rock” and “the Father
that begat us, and as has been said
The Christian is from Christ
Not Christ from the Christian
Not necessarily;
“Pit” Strongs #953 means something worthless
prison, of no value, grave, without hope
Isaiah uses it as such
~{Is.14:15}~
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
…
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
that go down to the stones of the pit
~{Is.24:22}~
And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit,
~{Is. 38:18}~
[/font=times] For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee:
they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth
David uses the same word to say
~{Ps.9:15}~
The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made:
~{Ps.40:2}~
He brought me up also out of an horrible pit,
out of the miry clay,
and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.
3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth,
even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear,
and shall trust in the LORD.
~{Ps.143:7}~
Hear me speedily, O LORD: my spirit faileth:
hide not thy face from me,
lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.
8 Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning;
for in thee do I trust:
cause me to know the way wherein I should walk;
for I lift up my soul unto thee.
~{Zech.11:9}~
As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth
thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
The Pit in the New Testament
~{Luke 6.39}~
He also told them this Parable;
Can a blind man lead a blind man?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
—{Symbolical of Error / Falsehood / Deception / False Teachers}–
A student is not above his teacher,
But everyone who is fully trained
Will be like his teacher
~{Deut.32:3}~
Because I will publish the name of the LORD:
ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect:
for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children:
they are a perverse and crooked generation.
6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise?
is not he thy father that hath bought thee?
hath he not made thee, and established thee?
~{Deut.32:18}~
Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful,
~{James 1:18}~
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,
There we see he is “the Rock” and “the Father
that begat us, and as has been said
The Christian is from Christ
Not Christ from the Christian
B
Buzzard
Guest
Kurt G.:
“What did he mean” when he saith “look to the Rock”
from whence you are hewn
Now; “Pit” does not mean Sarah nor Sarah’s womb
And “Rock” doesn’t necessarily mean Abraham
But it can mean “Roots”
As in “where” you came from
So lets go back to the reference
~{Isaiah 51:1}~
*Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness,
ye that seek the LORD:
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, *
the nation of your nativity
Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan;
thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut,
neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee;
thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.
5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee,
to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field,
to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood,
I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood,
Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you:
for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field,
and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments:
Look to the past and the pit of heathen idolatry
And to the hole of perversion I dug you out of
Look to the example of Abraham and Sarah
When I called they obeyed and I blessed him, and increased him
Now he pleads
follow the example of Abraham and Sarah
Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me,
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath:
Hearken unto me,
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD;
awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old.
Kurt G.:
John; “a true Teacher” says Christ has the Keys
– ~{Isaiah 22:22}~ --------------- ~{Rev.3:7}~ –
so he shall open ------------------ he that openeth
and none shall shut ---------- and no man shutteth
and he shall shut -------------------- and shutteth
and none shall open ----------- and no man openeth
I think it is obvious that John is drawing from Isaiah
And referring to Christ.
and that is what we are looking at
“What did he mean” when he saith “look to the Rock”
from whence you are hewn
Now; “Pit” does not mean Sarah nor Sarah’s womb
And “Rock” doesn’t necessarily mean Abraham
But it can mean “Roots”
As in “where” you came from
So lets go back to the reference
~{Isaiah 51:1}~
*Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness,
ye that seek the LORD:
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, *
the nation of your nativity
Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan;
thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut,
neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee;
thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.
5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee,
to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field,
to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood,
I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood,
Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you:
for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field,
and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments:
Look to the past and the pit of heathen idolatry
And to the hole of perversion I dug you out of
Look to the example of Abraham and Sarah
When I called they obeyed and I blessed him, and increased him
Now he pleads
follow the example of Abraham and Sarah
Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me,
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath:
Hearken unto me,
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD;
awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old.
Kurt G.:
All I know, Kurt;
John; “a true Teacher” says Christ has the Keys
– ~{Isaiah 22:22}~ --------------- ~{Rev.3:7}~ –
so he shall open ------------------ he that openeth
and none shall shut ---------- and no man shutteth
and he shall shut -------------------- and shutteth
and none shall open ----------- and no man openeth
I think it is obvious that John is drawing from Isaiah
And referring to Christ.
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=319830&postcount=51
Post #51
Fiat:
I don’t,
Pit used symbolically or as a metaphor means something dead, place of the dead, grave, without hope
preversion, falsehood, wickedness, pit, wells without water,
dry cisterns
~{Isaiah 51:1}~
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn,
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
2 Look unto Abraham your father,
and unto Sarah that bare you:
or as some say
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn,
Abraham your father,
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Sarah that bare you:
Therefore
Idon’t think he is refering to Abraham as a Rock
and Sarah as a worthless Pit
therefore I must look for a different meaning
Post #51
Why do you think the latter part of verse 1 necessarily describes Sarah.
I don’t,
Pit used symbolically or as a metaphor means something dead, place of the dead, grave, without hope
preversion, falsehood, wickedness, pit, wells without water,
dry cisterns
~{Isaiah 51:1}~
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn,
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
2 Look unto Abraham your father,
and unto Sarah that bare you:
or as some say
look unto the rock whence ye are hewn,
Abraham your father,
and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Sarah that bare you:
Therefore
Idon’t think he is refering to Abraham as a Rock
and Sarah as a worthless Pit
therefore I must look for a different meaning
M
Maccabees
Guest
Oh gee where to begin . The denial of the fact that Jesus that did Jesus did speak Aramaic the language spoke by the Hebrews at the time of Christ which is affirmed by scholars no matter what their theological slant no matter if Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Only the fringe imbicils believe that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic.
Evidence that the Jews lost their native tongue gradually and were all speaking Aramaic at the time of Christ is that the later books of the OT like Ezra and Daniel were largely written in Aramaic with those parts in Aramaic only found in Aramaic and not in Greek or Hebrew. Also the many books of the dueterocanicals were written first in Aramaic then transliterated into Greek. We have recently rediscovered some of these originals at Qumran written in Aramiac with the Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This Jewish community roughly at the time of Christ spoke Aramaic and wrote in Aramaic.
After the Diaspora and continuing to the time after Christ the Jewish documents were written in Aramaic
The Old Testament during these times were known as Targums and written in Aramaic and became the de facto OT for Jews who rejected the Greek Septugient which the early Christian church preferred. The absence of the Old Hebrew Bible is notable. And the Talmud is written in Aramaic as well. No archaeologist denies this fact and no one has found much eviidence that Old Hebrew or Greek was the language of choice for Jesus and his disciples all agree that it was not. It is not something protestants bought into but something both secular and christian sources have found to be true. You and your fundie church reject it. You deny 2000 years of evidence that say otherwise.
M
Maccabees
Guest
The church fathers say Matthew was written in Aramaic (The Hebrew of its time) not Greek. You say otherwise considering the church fathers actually knew of the of the original manuscripts and you don’t. You point to greek copies that we know of today. Uh let me fill you on something they are copies transliterated into Greek and not in the original language Matthew wrote in. Scholars agree Matthew was written for the Jews of Matthews time and no other gospel was written for that specific community. The other gospels were written to the gentile speaking church who largely spoke and read in greek. The Hebrews spoke and wrote in Aramaic at the time of first century .The targums and Talmud and the gospel of Matthew are commonly referred to as being written in Hebrew at that time but all of our copies of that time that we have today are not in anceint Hebrew but Aramaic. Why is this? Because Aramaic was the Hebrew of its day it was written and spoken by the common Jews of the time the only persons that might have known of anceint Hebrew were the top Jewish Pharisees. But the Jewish fishermen and tax collector etc that made up the common man of Jesus disciples would not know of ancient Hebrew and even if they did they wouldn’t communicate in that way since nobody else would know what you wrote. Even the Paharisees were only writing in Aramaic at that time to communicate their teachings to laypeople.
You have such disdain for the facts that you have now enterered bibliolatry you don’t care about what christ spoke or meant in Matthew or what the author meant to convey rather you worship a transliteration of a copy of the NT because you can somehow twist it to say what want it to say. Look the copy of Matthew is not the Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ and yes he spoke Aramaic.What is important is what Christ spoke and meant. The Gospels are the word of God when they covey the message that Jesus was trying to communicate when they are twisted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, or copied in error they cease to be the word of God.
You have such disdain for the facts that you have now enterered bibliolatry you don’t care about what christ spoke or meant in Matthew or what the author meant to convey rather you worship a transliteration of a copy of the NT because you can somehow twist it to say what want it to say. Look the copy of Matthew is not the Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ and yes he spoke Aramaic.What is important is what Christ spoke and meant. The Gospels are the word of God when they covey the message that Jesus was trying to communicate when they are twisted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, or copied in error they cease to be the word of God.
M
Maccabees
Guest
All scholars would agree we don’t have the original manuscripts and the best we can do are manuscript copies you seem to think that all we have are greek oh how ignorant you are. The Peshitta is one of the churches oldest manuscripts the church has and guess what it calls PETER ROCK in the ARAMAIC
Literally KIPO in eastern Aramaic meaning large massive rock. Hmm sounds like the catholic take on Peter to me. Also Christ spoke Aramaic and this fact is leaked throughout the gospels. In fact the very thing you dispute in answered by Christ.
John 1
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of (1) John; you shall be called (2) Cephas” (which is translated (3) Peter).
Cephas is the Greek transliteration of the Western Aramaic Kepha which means large massive rock. If Christ would have wanted to call Peter small rock he would have called him in the Aramaic Evna-literally small stone and not Kepha or Cephas.
Jesus meant to convey a significant thing with the name change here and he is not calling himself a rock. The fact is in Matthew 16:18 a historical event is taking place neither the Greek equivalent Petros, nor Cephas is attested as a personal name before Christ name Simon the ROCK. Translation for your small little mind Peter was the first person in history to be called ROCKY.
If Christ did not speak Aramaic why did he call Peter ROCK in ARAMAIC and why does Jesus quote Psalm 22 in Aramaic from the cross even when the gospels were written for a greek audience?
Mark 15
34 At the (1) ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “(2) ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
This is plain example of the original sayings of Jesus in ARAMAIC sneaking into a transliterated copy of the gospels.
Gee you said Jesus never spoke Aramaic. You lied!
I also have another newsflash for you Jesus was not called Jesus by the Jews of the King James Bible his name was Yeshua his Aramaic name. Hey try renting the Passion of the Christ some time Peter is called Kepha and Jesus Yeshua just like they would be during Christ life. No protestant uproar was heard about that because that is accepted by protestant scholarly sources and not looney tunes like you who have no evidence or study to back up your study.
Your exegesis of scripture is to horrid and nonsensical to respond to anymore and now your history and understanding of the language at Christ time is even more absurd. You have no credibility. Stop getting all your stuff from your fundie church and Jack Chick and try some authentic research into the issues than we can take you seriously.
Literally KIPO in eastern Aramaic meaning large massive rock. Hmm sounds like the catholic take on Peter to me. Also Christ spoke Aramaic and this fact is leaked throughout the gospels. In fact the very thing you dispute in answered by Christ.
John 1
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of (1) John; you shall be called (2) Cephas” (which is translated (3) Peter).
Cephas is the Greek transliteration of the Western Aramaic Kepha which means large massive rock. If Christ would have wanted to call Peter small rock he would have called him in the Aramaic Evna-literally small stone and not Kepha or Cephas.
Jesus meant to convey a significant thing with the name change here and he is not calling himself a rock. The fact is in Matthew 16:18 a historical event is taking place neither the Greek equivalent Petros, nor Cephas is attested as a personal name before Christ name Simon the ROCK. Translation for your small little mind Peter was the first person in history to be called ROCKY.
If Christ did not speak Aramaic why did he call Peter ROCK in ARAMAIC and why does Jesus quote Psalm 22 in Aramaic from the cross even when the gospels were written for a greek audience?
Mark 15
34 At the (1) ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “(2) ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
This is plain example of the original sayings of Jesus in ARAMAIC sneaking into a transliterated copy of the gospels.
Gee you said Jesus never spoke Aramaic. You lied!
I also have another newsflash for you Jesus was not called Jesus by the Jews of the King James Bible his name was Yeshua his Aramaic name. Hey try renting the Passion of the Christ some time Peter is called Kepha and Jesus Yeshua just like they would be during Christ life. No protestant uproar was heard about that because that is accepted by protestant scholarly sources and not looney tunes like you who have no evidence or study to back up your study.
Your exegesis of scripture is to horrid and nonsensical to respond to anymore and now your history and understanding of the language at Christ time is even more absurd. You have no credibility. Stop getting all your stuff from your fundie church and Jack Chick and try some authentic research into the issues than we can take you seriously.
- Status