Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ShadowAce
Your point fails since the original Greek in that verse uses two different, and completely separate, words for "rock."

You should learn a little about Greek. Greek has 'gender' in nouns. For example, in French, a female noun is preceded by "la" la femme - the woman. A male noun is preceded by "le" - le livre - the book.

In Greek, rock is petra, a feminine noun. But since Jesus called Simon (a male) the Rock, they needed a male noun, and used Petros.

There is no problem once you understand that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek. Or Latin. Or English.

213 posted on 04/24/2013 9:03:24 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies ]


To: FatherofFive
I know enough. I know that Greek uses gender.

I also know that Christ (or the author) did not use the male noun when saying "...upon this rock I will build my Church."

If He was talking about Peter, He (or the author) would've used the male version, and not the female version.

215 posted on 04/24/2013 9:06:28 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

To: FatherofFive; ShadowAce
There is no problem once you understand that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek. Or Latin. Or English.

Actually, not true for the first one. Greek was actually quite commonly spoken throughout Palestine, and especially in Galilee, in which a large number of Gentiles lives. Indeed, epigraphers and archaeologists have found nearly as many Greek inscriptions of all kinds from this time period in this region as they have found Aramaic and other Semitic ones. As businessmen (a carpenter and a fisherman, respectively), Jesus and Peter would both almost certainly have been fluent in Greek as an almost first language.

Couple this with the unlikelihood that Matthew's gospel was "originally" in Aramaic, which is largely based on unproven (and indeed, unprovable) theories about a "Q" document being the "original source" of the gospels, and there's no real reason to suppose that Matthew "originally" intended for there to be no gender issue with Matthew 16:18.

Indeed, one has to wonder - if Catholicism is correct, and if the "early church" (said to be Catholic) translated Matthew's Aramaic gospel into Greek, then why didn't they translate both presumed appearances of tsela as petros, to make it completely clear that Peter was the rock that Matthew was writing about?

220 posted on 04/24/2013 9:20:53 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

To: FatherofFive
There is no problem once you understand that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek. Or Latin. Or English.

Well just post that Aramaic bible then so we can all see what Jesus really said...Or does that exclusively belong to the Catholic religion??? Or maybe it doesn't and never did exist???

226 posted on 04/24/2013 9:38:27 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson