Posted on 09/25/2008 3:35:53 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953
Thank you for the feeedback.
this is a very "un Diego-like" post, my friend. We may disagree, but you are crossing the line by implying we must "dance around" or "shore up hopeless theology" or "worry about our motives". I am beginning to sense you think Catholics are devilish as a group. This does not bode well for future conversations.
Whether Peter spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or both, it is inconsequential to the fact that Peter had primacy among the Apostles. We see clues of this throughout the Scriptures - and we note he had the name "Cephas" - ROCK. The whole article above is ridiculous because it cannot recognize that Paul recognizes that Simon is ROCK.
The language issue is your pet-peeve that you have not proven - nor have you made any link between it and the importance in this thread. It really says nothing about who is the Rock, which is the topic of this thread. It is beyond argument that Simon was called ROCK. Jesus is not called Cephas. End of story.
Regards
Jesus, of course, did not name Simon, “Peter” at all. “Peter” is a translation of Simon’s new name, “Cephas.” Whatever distinction between Petros and Petra the Protestant apologists’ imagination would invent is an artifact of translation.
There are instance in Attick Greek where poets used “Petra” as a “mother lode”, and “Petros” as the child, but there is no such distinction in Koine (biblical) Greek. Throughout the Greek bible, including the Greek versions of the Old Testament, “Petra” is the word used for “rock,” and “lithos” for “a stone.” Matthew used “Petros” instead of “Petra” as a means of giving Cephas a masculine first name, since “Petra” is a feminine name.
This is yet another case where Protestant apologists state, “it means A, so it cannot mean B.” This is false. Clearly Peter is Cephas. But faith in Christ, as all those verses do properly attest is also Cephas. Peter became the living embodiment of faith. I’ve seen Protestants cite Church Fathers as if they were providing proof that the Rock was faith in Christ, and therefore not Peter, whereas those authors were frequently making the point that to know the truth about Jesus, one must look to the teaching of the Church, of which Peter was the regent.
Wow, you know the thing is it doesn’t matter whether Jesus spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic (for the purposes of this discussion). The difference is almost like the difference between King James English and modern spoken English. The point is that Jesus called Simon, “Cephas.”
When Jesus quoted the scripture, he used Hebrew. I don’t think anyone said otherwise. When Jesus spoke otherwise, he probably usually spoke in the common language of the people, which would have been Aramaic. It’s even possible he knew Latin or Greek. (I recall some scholarly debate over whether “The Passion of the Christ” was reasonable when it depicted Jesus answering Pilate in Latin.) But again: the point is that Simon’s new name was Cephas, and Cephas does not possibly imply a smaller stone.
Hebrew and Aramaic were both Semitic languages with many similarities....but the scripture you quoted was written by Matthew himself.....and he wrote it in the Hebrew (later translated to Greek).....just like the Hebrew Psalmist wrote it.
It is unknown for certain whether Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, the languages are similar enough, with enough similarities in their idiomatic usage, that it is unclear which one is being translated into Greek. "Hebraicisms" and "Aramaicisms" cannot easily be distinguished when the translation is being made into a non-Semitic language. But we do know this: the words of Jesus in Matthew 27:46 are clearly in Aramaic, and that is because Jesus spoke Aramaic in His everyday speech with the Apostles and those around Him.
There are a number of other quotes, as I alluded to yesterday, of Aramaic in the Greek New Testament. Anyone referred to as "son of," as, for example, Simon bar Jonah, or Bartholomew, or even Barsabbas (from Acts 1:23) always has the Aramaic "bar," rather than the Hebrew "ben." "Ephphatha (Be opened) from Mark 7:34, "mammon" from Matthew 6;24, Akeldama (field of blood), "raca" (idiot, fool) from Matthew 5:22, and so on and so forth; all of these are Aramaic words.
The point: Jesus undoubtedly understood Hebrew, but all of His everyday discourse was in Aramaic. there is no reason to suppose that any of the Apostles, who were generally uneducated men, spoke any other Semitic language than Aramaic, there being no real reason to. They would have had more day-to-day motivation to pick up some Koine Greek first, as it would have been useful with any foreigners they interacted with.
As to all the quotes talking about the "Hebrews,' it should be clear that the Jews were a Hebrew people, and they were called Hebrews accordingly. Their language may have been referred to as "Hebrew" as well, but this is either due to misinformation or streamlining what were considered to be insignificant differences. A contemporary example of our time might be the fact that, in border states with Mexico, all white people are habitually referred to as "Anglos," whether they have a drop of English blood in them or not. It might not be "accurate," but people know what is meant.
You can quote the Fathers all you want on this, they were not necessarily in their element categorizing languages they generally did not understand, and couldn't tell the difference between. Linguists, on the other hand, can distinguish these two languages one from the other, and their verdict is certainly clear enough.
Peter and the rest from Galilee, did not speak Hebrew with a Galilean accent, as you allege. They Spoke Aramaic with a Galilean accent. Again, all of the "son of" names are Aramaic, and all of the untranslated quotes of Jesus while speaking with people up north in Galilee were also Aramaic. All of the internal Scriptural evidence, therefore, points to Aramaic being the common tongue up north, and general linguistic analysis, from unbiased, secular sources, bears this out. But, where does this all lead for you? None of this even matters in the passage that is at issue in this thread. Whether the word was Aramaic (Kepha) or Hebrew (Keph), it is still translated as "rock," and is grammatically the same in both of the places where it is used in the verse. And the "little stone" vs. "giant rock" meaning therefore has no bearing, since those come in only by way of the Greek translation, and, in any event, the type of Greek the New Testament uses did not make that distinction between "petros" and "petra" by the First Century anyway. Jesus said: "You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church." No difference in words there. "You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church."
Finally, the argument that God is the Rock is a false lead. It is true, as people say, that God is referred to as a Rock in several places in Scripture. But, even if Peter was only supposed to be a "small stone" (and, again, that was not the real meaning of the word anyway), Jesus still makes an allusion that is clearly akin to "rock.", does He not? This would still have signified that He intended to confer on Simon bar Jonah a share of His divine prerogatives to lead His Church. He could have changed Simon's name to "Key" or "Fisher of Men" or "Honcho" or "Apple Turnover," but, even according to the "little stone" argument, He still gave Simon a name that is "related" to the "rock" of God. That is significant! And that should give you pause when you seek to undermine the clear will of Jesus Christ for the role He desired to give to Simon Peter.
You're right about the "son of" being Aramaic -- bar is Aramaic for "son." The Hebrew is ben. Yes, I've heard of "bar mitzvah" too, but bar is nevertheless Aramaic; from the earliest rabbinic Hebrew, Hebrew has included a lot of Aramaic borrowings, probably -- at least in the beginning of rabbinic Hebrew -- the result of people who spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue writing in Hebrew, cf. the rapid influx of French words into English after England lost Normandy and the French-speaking nobility in England started speaking English.
Abba is also Aramaic -- the Hebrew is av (I transliterate with the Israeli pronunciation) -- even though little Israeli kids call their daddies "abba."
Possibly the wrong premise. I prefer the question, 'WHAT is the Rock?'
To answer that question requires only a minimum of words and a much clearer path of logic.
I don’t even bother arguing anything but scripture with the Protestants, and prefer open threads.
I need to update my profile. Will be done in a minute. Is the database back?
Jesus, His Blessed Mother and His apostles all spoke Aramaic. Hebrew was the liturgical language of the Temple at that time.
Source?
St. Hegessipus in the 2nd century of the Church had already compiled a list of the popes, listing the current one at the time (Pope Anacletus) as the eleventh successor to St. Peter.
The fact the the Catholic Church was very anti Semitic in certain era gone by is not a debatable issue. It is absolute history. Therefore, the motives for removing anything Jewish from Our Lord's persona is obvious. I'm sure you have....but maybe some folks have not..... read... John Chrysostom. Tell me that this is not full of hatred and prejudice for the Jews. Tell me that the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday was not for hatred of the Jews. It sure isn't scriptural! Tell me that the abolishing of the Festivals and Holy Days was not inspired by hatred of the Jews. Tell me that the ignoring of God's dietary laws were not anti Semitic in nature. You cannot find any scripture evidence to support your position! These motives were all undertaken out of hatred for anything that smacked of Judaism.
As far as your theology being hopeless....it is! It is not Biblical....it is contradictory to scripture....and is a false system. I've never claimed differently. If it were the true church.....I would join it! But.....so is the theology of your Protestant daughter churches! I don't plan on joining them any day soon....either!
And you folks do dance around this issue about the name of Peter....."Cephas". You continue to ignore the fact that the New Testament is a Greek Translation.....and the word Cephas means "A Stone" (in Greek)! [John 1:42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (4074. Petros (pet'-ros)apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle), which is by interpretation, A stone. If the Apostle John wanted Peter to have the persona of a massive rock he would have written "Petra". Instead he wrote "Petros". And....you've got to dance around, claiming that Our Lord spoke Aramaic, to try and make this silly point!
The Greek in [Matthew 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter 4074. Petros (pet'-ros) apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos); as a name, Petrus, an apostle , and upon this rock (4073. petra (pet'-ra)feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
When Matthew speaks of The Lord being the "Rock"....he says Petra. When John speaks of Peter being the "stone"....he says Petros.....and you folks dance and dance and dance. Matthew even uses both words (Petros & Petra) in his scripture. If you cannot see the obvious difference here you are not being sincere.
I don't think Catholics are devilish at all. I number Catholics in my family and have many Catholic acquaintances whom I believe are good Christian folks. The problem is not them....it is the organization they belong to. The fact that it is not the Church of the New Testament can be proved by the simple fact you have to rely on tradition and the ability to change as you go..... to firm up your case. You cannot stand on existing scripture because your arguments then quickly evaporate.
Whether Peter spoke Hebrew or Aramaic or both, it is inconsequential to the fact that Peter had primacy among the Apostles. We see clues of this throughout the Scriptures - and we note he had the name "Cephas" - ROCK. The whole article above is ridiculous because it cannot recognize that Paul recognizes that Simon is ROCK.
If Peter had any primacy why in the world did he not just stand up here and tell everyone to be still? [Luke 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. This is the Passover Preparation before the crucifixion....sometime after the incident in Matthew where you folks insist he receives some type of primacy. I realize you must teach this or your "House of Cards" comes tumbling down. It's still "Balderdash" .... irregardless!
The language issue is your pet peeve that you have not proved - nor have you made any link between it and the importance in this thread. It really says nothing about who is the Rock, which is the topic of this thread. It is beyond argument that Simon was called ROCK. Jesus is not called Cephas. End of story.
This was from the article: Christ spoke Aramaic and that the same word — ke'pha' — would have been spoken by the Lord for both Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ
Yup! He did.....but not around the house.
If you read the Greek {Matthew 16:18] Our Lord is referred to as "Petra". Peter is never called that. He is called "Petros" [John 1:42][I Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5;][Galatians 2:9]. Based upon the authority of the original Greek New Testament.....Petros is the name given to Simon Bar Jona.....by the Lord [John 1:42]. The Greek text does not agree that Peter is the Rock.
This is a very "un Diego-like" post, my friend.
This is a very "un Joe like" thing to say.
Did he list Linus as the first Bishop of Rome?
You got some "scholarly" proof for this statement?
Eli and lama were the same in both languages (as you note, they are very similar, closely related Semitic languages). Sabachthani, on the other hand, is strictly Aramaic, the Hebrew equivalent being significantly different: azbatany.
Paragraph six. Modern Aramaic and Hebrew both come from Chaldee. The reason Sabachthani is spelled differently than what you see in [Psalms 22:1] in the Hebrew: ’ēlî ’ēlî lāmâ ‘ăzaḇətānî ......it doesn't have the inflections of a Galilean accent that Jesus, Peter and Matthew would all be speaking 1000 years later.
It is unknown for certain whether Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Let me help you out here:
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.) "Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."
Irenaeus, (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1) "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the assembly."
Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4) As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Assembly of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."
Eusebius, (H.E. 3.24.6) Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."
Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), Bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonised account of the canonical Gospels.
Jerome Also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).
But we do know this: the words of Jesus in Matthew 27:46 are clearly in Aramaic, and that is because Jesus spoke Aramaic in His everyday speech with the Apostles and those around Him.
We know nothing of the kind.....it is your assumption....and an incorrect one at that.
[Luke 23:38] And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
[John 5:2] Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
[John 19:13] When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
[John 19:17] And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
[John 19:20] This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
[Acts 21:40] And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying
[Acts 22:2] (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith.
[Acts 26:14] And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[Revelation 9:11] And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
[Revelation 16:16] And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Did you ever wonder why there are so many references to the Hebrew language in the New Testament? It's because everyone spoke Hebrew around Jerusalem....including Our Lord. Very few actually spoke Aramaic (that's why you don't see any Biblical references to it).....although....most could understand it.
The point: Jesus undoubtedly understood Hebrew, but all of His everyday discourse was in Aramaic. there is no reason to suppose that any of the Apostles, who were generally uneducated men, spoke any other Semitic language than Aramaic, there being no real reason to.
First of all....let me say "Balderdash"! Then let me say: The reason the Apostles spoke Hebrew on a day to day basis....was because everyone else in Judea did also. Try to find some references in the New Testament to the language of Aramaic. It's difficult....almost impossible.
I realize you folks have to dance around this issue to protect your mythical primacy of Peter. It's sad.
Not really. I don’t think we can do searches yet.
No ... he listed the first pope as St. Peter.
Sad that some men think more highly How will YHvH judge the Pride of men Amen !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
of the Traditions of man
then the Word of G-d.
who impugn the Holy Word of Elohim.
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.