Posted on 09/28/2001 1:15:53 PM PDT by malakhi
He may have spoken Aramaic. But we have a Greek text, not an aramaic text. The differentiation is in the Greek. Without an Aramaic text to compare to, there is no reason to believe that if it is a translation from Aramaic, the original Aramaic did not in some way convey the difference. You want to choose words and put them in the mouth of Jesus that fit your view of things. But, since we don't know he said it in Aramaic and don't have it written in aramaic it can hardly be stated as fact what he said in aramaic. For all we know, he was speaking in Greek. He was a Carpenter and Greek was a trade language. See the variables creeping in? I do. With or without Greek, the statement stands. I can pick a thought and express it in ten different ways in English. The same can be done in most languages. Is the quotation an exact quote? Or was it a paraphrase of the events? Hmmm? I'm sure we can offer a multitude of variables that can play with your blind ascertations. Provide the original Aramaic or be quiet, please. Noise is not scholarship.
Rest up Steven, Havoc has things well under control for now, and I think from now on I'm simply going to Copy and Paste his post rather then do all the research myself.
Get better and we'll schedule you back in next week.
Can you come in and pick up your pay check, or should we send it to your house? LOL +<:-)
What, can't find that Aramaic text you so want to quote from? Where is it. Produce it that we may see the credibility of your argument. Knowing you are right would be predicated on an establishment of your argument in fact not fantasy. You haven't established anything save that Cephas (Kephas) is a Chaldaic/Aramaic word. The Russians, Turks, Americans, Greeks, Hindus, etc all have versions of that word too. Your problem is that the text doesn't invoke the word. It invokes two Greek words that have different meanings. The one Jesus prefers for building his Church upon is the one ascribed to himself, not to Peter. Oops. The Cephas issue comes in because in order to blur the fact of the preferance given to one Greek word over another one has to remove the difference in the two words. Words mean things. And they are chosen by a writer for a reason. Just because you need this verse to prop up a claim doesn't mean we'll by it when you try to reinvent the verse to make it say what you wish it said.
Now, if I have to chose between your version of the scripture and what the author gave us, I'll stick with the greek text we have. At least it was translated from something other than your imagination.
Oh, ok, the debunking continues. By all means if he left the church he can't know anything about which he speaks. All men's memories are wiped clean when they leave. They all just make stuff up for the shear heck of it. Every last one of them just fabricates a story out of thin air to do you damage just for fun. I'm sure that's it. I'm sure that spies who are turncoats and give information to enemy countries as an act of treason don't know anything about which they speak either? Or perhaps people knowing trade secrets when they share them with the competition don't know what they are talking about either? I know you have to poke fun to maintain the illusion that any ex-Catholic can't be telling anyone the truth - just wanted to illustrate it into the ground for those who might actually take your viewpoint seriously. Some already know how absurd it is.
Translation in actuality: Claim made and not proven does not equal fact. Prejudice doesn't enter into it in the slightest - save on your side of the argument where you think you can utter whatever you wish and until it is disproven it is gospel. That isn't the way it works.
Which rather compliates the claims of those who resort to literal interpretation of the Text. That means we have no words that Jesus actually spoke?
As I mention in my post, however, it is far more than "One man in Rome" who believes the truth of the True Faith.
Call it what you will. The truth lies in the texts. Catholicism blamed the entire Turkish world for what a small group of terrorists did. A fatal miscalculation that some wish to be reapplied in todays circumstances.
The Turks were in the process of ethnic cleansing of the teritories recently won. So places like Cappadocia which had been Christian for centuries were very soon, not, because we have a whole people on the move, like the case of the German invasions of the West.
This is not supported by the evidence. When Jerusalem was retaken by your side, there was an ample population of Christians and Jews that were slaughtered, not by the Turks, but by the Crusaders. Same thing in Constantinople and elsewhere. What changed was the overall makeup of the cities. As Muslims moved in, they obviously became more concentrated in Muslim thinking than in Christian or Judaic thinking. And to say that Catholicism was championing the cause against ethnic cleansing begs reality. The inquisitions were in progress back home while the crusades were going on. Catholicism was flexing it's muscles and using forged laws in an effort to "Cleans" it's territories of anyone who was not Catholic. So the effort was internal and external - practicing the exact thing that you want us to believe they were fighting against.
The Byzanrine Empire, like all antique empires had, of course, no definite boundaries but depended on alliances and tributary arranngements as ell as it armie to maintain its rule. But you are going beyonf that to claim, of only by implication, that the aims of the Turks et al.were pacific. Hardly.
Salimen and the ruling sect as a whole were passive. They had no quarral at that point in time with anyone. They were shocked by the attack coming on them. They were not an aggressor against anyone at the time. The Seljuk were aggresively defending their caravans, again calling this from memory, and it turned into expansionism based in protectionism. Rather than pull their caravans which were making them Money, they attacked and attempted to conquer the people that were interfering with their income. Salimen was indeed passive - and it is ultimately why he lost his throne to his brother. He defended his kingdom until Richard tried to retake Jerusalem; then it all fell apart. Salimen could be reasoned with to an extent; but, the people were seeing his brother as the stronger by this time. The peasants, if you will, understood only that they were being attacked. The brother had them stirred up with nationalistic pride as it were. And they were all too happy to raise him to the throne and replace Salimen. Had The Catholic Empire concentrated strictly on the Seljuk and used better judgement, The Byzantine empire might have been defended, though agreements for trade would have to have been altered.
No, it doesn't. I didn't say Jesus spoke Aramaic. I said he may have (a maybe). The original texts *may* have been written in aramaic - doesn't mean Jesus was speaking aramaic. As I pointed out before, Jesus was a Carpenter - skilled in a trade and Greek was a common trade language. It does not stretch the bounds of possibility to consider that he could speak Greek. But this is considered on the basis that he was a mere mortal. He was the son of God. I'm certain that had he decided to speak Erdu or Hindi, he could have. Oops, another issue that just completely blows your whole theory out of the water.
If you are pulling my chain o.k. Otherwise what you are saying is nonsensical, untrue, and/or unproven.
Hey I dropped it as supposition - not proof. But if you want to split hairs on the supposition, Are you going to really argue that if God decided to speak in Arabic then turn to another and speak in Niponese that he couldn't? I wouldn't make that argument in a million years. I don't proffer it as proof though, merely as another option or viewpoint to show the absurdity of the claim. And, yes, it is absurd. That one can say we don't have Jesus' true words because they were translated to another language. By that measure, not a single soul in all of Catholicism for hundreds of years had the words of Jesus because they were spoken in Latin, not Jesus' native tongue - whatever it may have been.
And in absence of quotations from nonexistant texts, are we to now believe that you are mad because I hold you to what you guys have claimed to be the basis of your scholarship? Another claim that doesn't align with reality..
Agreed upon like this?:
Peter as the rock.
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...’You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15 - 19).
In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock.
Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4).
So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
"Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.
What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer
(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327). ==========================================================
Or agreement on the Apocrypha like this?
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
============================================================ You speak drivel. Why don't you just accept that you know nothing and don't really care to. It might confuse you. Better to just go along with the "truth" as taught.
It isn't geometry or law - true. How does that in any way minimize the importance of fact? History is more important than Math and at least as important as Law. Yet you wish to offer to the forum that History really shouldn't require such a High standard as law or math either one? "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." How can one, praytell, learn from history if history has lax standards and can barely be trusted to begin with? That history has not been learned from by some among the Catholic faith is evidenced in the post of the incident in south america I posted a while back - to wit Catholics bearing weapons running protestants out of a town in south america, jailing some and preparing to run out the rest that had not yet left. Hundreds of protestants fleeing for fear of their lives while Catholics pursue with weapons in hand. It is reflected too in the opinions so boldly expressed by countless Catholics on FR immediatly after the incidents of September 11. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. And the abundance of the heart made many say such things as 'we should finish what was started in the crusades and wipe all the muslims out', and 'the only bad thing about the crusades is they ultimately did not succede.' Religious persecution raises it's ugly head - why do you suppose that is? Could it be, perhaps, because the Catholic Church wishes to teach that what they did was alright - that they were the victim.. Doesn't line up with the facts. And one can hardly learn from half truths, deciet and handwringing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.