A
AugustTherese
Guest
But, where can I find this “Church”? Where is it? Does it have a name, or should I just go look out in public for a sign labeled “Church”?
- Status
T
tgGodsway
Guest
But the universal language was not Aramaic but Greek. The holy spirit wanted it preserved in Greek, and that is what we have today. The fact that thousands of copies all from that first and second century, recorded Matt.16:18 with Petros and Petra is telling. If they were copying from the Aramaic text there would have been a huge discrepancy over this verse seeing the consistency in using Petros and Petra in Greek.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
If you are looking for the church, you can find her out in the public proclaiming the kingdom of God as what we see in the book of Acts.
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
AugustTherese
Guest
That is not an answer. That is an over-generalization using circular reasoning.
If you asked me where I resided, and I responded: “Wherever you can find me sleeping on a bed”; not only am I deliberately dodging your question, I am deceivingly giving you an open-ended answer for a closed-ended question.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes. And contemporary Scripture scholars have all but given up the arguments you make regarding supposed differences between “petra” and “Petros”.
The only folks who keep making these claims are the ones who cling to an outdated, discredited eisegesis, and only then because their goal is to discredit the Catholic Church (rather than to understand what Scripture is truly saying).
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
Which is one reason we should all be thankful that Jesus built and authorized His Church to speak on His behalf…
As His Church is - among other things - that through which God gave us the complete text of His Holy Book, knowing that the Holy Spirit would keep it intact until the end of time. (Luke 10; John 20; Matthew 28)
As His Church is - among other things - that through which God gave us the complete text of His Holy Book, knowing that the Holy Spirit would keep it intact until the end of time. (Luke 10; John 20; Matthew 28)
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
Actually…
There’s a chance it might be an unauthorized version of the Bible that has some other king’s name on it. Which apparently has contributed to the confusion some have.
There’s a chance it might be an unauthorized version of the Bible that has some other king’s name on it. Which apparently has contributed to the confusion some have.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well, this is the problem. The concept of Church has already been defined by a small town in Italy called Rome. But they failed to check with the New Testament. Church has never been about buildings and hierarchical Roman institutions. It has never been about select and privileged people in high places dictating to the world what God has to say. It is the opposite.
You can find a very good pattern of what the Church is supposed to look like in the book of Acts. Yes, there was organization and yes, they developed a structure of authority coming down from the Apostles. But the most basic understanding of Church was that she is a collection of people willing to go into the public to preach Christ. It is common people who make up the Church, not the grandiose, sophisticated, politically driven organization called the Roman Catholic Church. However, I am sure God uses people within that system too. But the system itself is NOT the Church.
You can find a very good pattern of what the Church is supposed to look like in the book of Acts. Yes, there was organization and yes, they developed a structure of authority coming down from the Apostles. But the most basic understanding of Church was that she is a collection of people willing to go into the public to preach Christ. It is common people who make up the Church, not the grandiose, sophisticated, politically driven organization called the Roman Catholic Church. However, I am sure God uses people within that system too. But the system itself is NOT the Church.
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
“It is a proven science but it had taken the church a long time to understand it’s importance. It is not some kind of Divine authority but finding the truth is a Divine mandate.”
++++
The Church was founded BEFORE the text quoting Jesus saying He was building one that would bind and loose on earth AND in Heaven, and BEFORE it was written down and determined to be included in the New Testament. Meaning, the Church existed and pre-dated the New Testament, and understood its duties which officially began on the first Pentecost.
Why would anyone think Jesus would build a Church that would not know how or what to teach on His behalf? That would mean it would not know how to bind and loose, forgive and retain, etc. - as we clearly read in Scripture that He commanded it to do - saying not only that hell would not prevail against His Church, but also that He would be with us always. (Matthew 16, 18; John 20; Matthew 28)
++++
The Church was founded BEFORE the text quoting Jesus saying He was building one that would bind and loose on earth AND in Heaven, and BEFORE it was written down and determined to be included in the New Testament. Meaning, the Church existed and pre-dated the New Testament, and understood its duties which officially began on the first Pentecost.
Why would anyone think Jesus would build a Church that would not know how or what to teach on His behalf? That would mean it would not know how to bind and loose, forgive and retain, etc. - as we clearly read in Scripture that He commanded it to do - saying not only that hell would not prevail against His Church, but also that He would be with us always. (Matthew 16, 18; John 20; Matthew 28)
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where did that “authority coming down from the Apostles” go?
D
Debbie_Kono
Guest
I don’t understand this. Is it your contention that the Protestant churches/leaders are not led by the Holy Spirit (Divine Authority)?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, it was defined by Jesus.
Actually, the Church in Rome that you’re railing against compiled, preserved, and gave you the New Testament you’re reading.
You would do well to actually read up on the history of the Church, especially in the first 500 years or so of its existence.
Sooooo… it’s not about ‘hierarchy’ or ‘institution’ or ‘select people’, but it is about ‘organization’ and ‘structure’ and ‘authority’ and ‘apostolic’ leadership. Self-contradict much, do ya?
Actually, if you read the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul, it’s not the “collection of people” preaching Christ – it’s the apostolic leadership you’re dismissing who did so!
Your idea of ‘church’ isn’t what was in the Book of Acts, even though it’s what you call ‘church’ today.
Correct. The ‘system’ is the leadership of the Church. We see that leadership in action in the Book of Acts and in the epistles of Paul. Why you rail against that leadership – when it’s evidenced in the very book you claim that the Catholic Church hasn’t read and you have! – is just sad.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
As for copying from the Aramaic text – as far as I know there was no Aramaic text.
Christ spoke Aramaic to His disciples. He did not write them letters.
Later when His words were written down, they were written in Greek because that was the ‘universal language’ of the time. The Greek writers used petra and petros.
But Greek did not remain forever the ‘universal language’.
Later on Latin was the ‘universal language’ of the time. Later still I believe French filled that slot. Now, for much of the world at least, it’s English.
And “what we have today” is not Greek. It is English.
And French and Spanish and German and Russian and Italian and Swedish and Romanian and many other languages.
And yes, Greek too. But there is nothing sacred about the Greek version compared to other languages.
Christ spoke in Aramaic, and in Aramaic Kephas meant a stone.
In modern English the meaning is clear. You are the rock and on this rock I will build my Church.
The translation in Greek was quirky because in Greek words are gendered.
Finally, Greek for ‘little rock’ is not petros. It is lithos. If the Greek writers meant to call Simon a little rock why did they not write: “You are Lithos and on this petra I will build my Church”?
Editing to add: As to the ‘discrepancy’. No. There was no huge discrepancy. The Greek writers used the Greek word for Rock because Christ said Rock. But they had a difficulty because in Greek, unlike Aramaic, the word for ‘rock’ is a feminine noun. They could not use it because they would have been giving Peter a female name. So they used the male grammatical ending, and called him “Petros” rather than “Petra.” The difference is not meaning but grammar.
Last edited:
A
AveOTheotokos
Guest
Was Matthew's Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?
Is there no evidence that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic? As a matter of fact, there is some evidence. Click here to see it.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
I stand corrected, and thank you AveOTheotokos.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
No. Scripture does not interpret scripture. Holy Mother Church interprets scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit.
No matter how many individual believers agree with you, if you contradict Mother Church you are mistaken.
Now this bit:
This is true. It just does not prove your point nor disprove mine.
Edit to add: I’m going away for a while so won’t be responding quickly to anyone.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Maybe you should change your username to “God tg’s way”? Seriously, you seem well off the path as to your understanding of theology, the history of the Church and the right use of scripture. Apparently, you have been granted the sole ability to rightly divide the scriptures? Where is that in the bible? However, God will forgive, if your attitude cannot be overcome.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I’m not sure what your point is here.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I partially agree. But I think the whole Greek/Aramaic argument is irrelevant. The Matthew16:18 passage does not say as much as Rome says about it.
- Status