Posted on 09/24/2002 7:54:39 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Do you think you can read the mind of Jesus and substitute the words you wish?
It is of no meaning where you can find a stray Aramaic word. We are discussing Matthew. There is no dispute Jesus spoke Aramaic and several other languages as well. So what? You cannot just guess what the name would have been if...
Incidentally, what was the name Jesus called Peter the very last time he spoke to him? Does it have any meaning to you?
<> Oh, yes, the words of Jesus have such meaning to me I obey them.
Your words, however....<>
<> My skin is tougher than Kevlar. You're gonna have to try harder...:)<>
You're dodging the point Reg. You admit that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. Do you doubt what Aramaic name Jesus gave Peter? It is recorded elsewhere in Scripture, isn't it?
Incidentally, what was the name Jesus called Peter the very last time he spoke to him? Does it have any meaning to you?
Petie? Or maybe it was years later and it was OldPeter?
(Reg) Incidentally, what was the name Jesus called Peter the very last time he spoke to him? Does it have any meaning to you?
Petie? Or maybe it was years later and it was OldPeter?
How about "Simon, son of John"? Use your imagination and change this into "Rock".
He will need Daves help on that one.
BigMack
Good grief. Where does it say anywhere in the gospels that Pilate spoke Latin? Some things we just know from history. Aramaic and Hebrew are related languages. In first century Judea, Hebrew was used for religious documents and worship services, while Aramaic was the "common" everyday language. There are extensive records of Aramaic documents dating to that time period.
I told ya Reggie.
BigMack
Who knows? Is there a record in Scripture that says "and this is the last time Jesus spoke to Peter, and this is the appelation He used?"
SD
He will need Daves help on that one.
BigMack
You know, I've always thought the last name or term you use for anyone has more importance than the first.
I no longer call my ex by the terms love, sweets, darling, or honey. Wonder why?
Now I am very serious. Do you suppose Jesus's deliberate change back to Simon has any meaning?
I figured you'd be happy if both the KJV and RSV agree. The only one I know of that doesn't say that is the Living Bible so if you want to go down that road.... I suspect Mack won't go with you. :)
Are you aware of some version that does NOT include the Aramaic?
The question is, why is the first reference so important to to you and the last so meaningless.
Ahhh. There's the point. But not a very good one (I thought this was going to be a "Satan" reference).
How do you know that's the last time Jesus spoke to Peter? Answer? You only know it's the last time recorded in scripture. Is it done in a way that seems to "change" his name back? I don't think so (his name was still Simon).
And since Scripture is your only source... what is the last reference to Peter in Scripture? Even if Peter wrote it, don't you accept it as God's word?
If Jesus changed his name at the end, I guess all the other authors of Scripture must have called him Simon or Satan, right?
Hmmmmm. If Peter stuck I guess that's the name Jesus intended.
Maybe it's because, from then on, he was called Peter in Scripture (and isn't that supposed to be your gold standard?)
What change? What are you talking about?
Who knows? Is there a record in Scripture that says "and this is the last time Jesus spoke to Peter, and this is the appelation He used?"
We do know this is the last recorded instance in Scripture where Jesus spoke directly to Simon and we do know there was only one recorded instance in Scripture wherein it is possible, with imagination, to suggest Jesus changed Peter's name to Rock/Pebble/Stone.
You know many things that are not so. First of all the "last recorded instance in Scripture" is determined how? By chronology? By the order of the book's appearance? What? This is of no great importance.
Second, the "last recorded" is hardly the last time Jesus spoke to Peter. You can't prove that.
And then, you say that there is only one instance in Scripture where Sinom might have been called "Peter." This is silly. As we have been saying Simon is referred to, in Aramaic, as Kephas in other Scriptures. And, correct me if I am wrong, but there is a book of Peter isn't there? Not a book of Simon? Or is that not Scripture for you?
The question is, why is the first reference so important to to you and the last so meaningless.
The question is why you attempt to minimize this name change that Scripture and history record?
SD
What kind of argument is this???? Have you gone off your medication??
:)
Inspired (by God... who knew the answer to this argument) Scripture was written for almost a hundred years after Jesus spoke those words. And all of those authors got it wrong? Or did they stop calling him Peter when Jesus said "Simon" (Which never ceased to be his name)?
If there was even the slightest possiblilty that this latest "argument" (to be charitable) of yours held any water, we would not see these inspired authors (including Peter) using "Peter" when they would have known that Jesus had "changed it back"
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.