Yes, but dignan3 was seeking to make a case in John 6 that the Greek word used means "gnaw". He was trying to establish the literalness of the passage. I simply pointed out that here, he wished to have Jesus speaking Greek (if it were in Aramaic, translated into Greek, how do we know that the original connotation of the word was preserved in the translation?). But in Matthew 16:18, Catholics have argued that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, thus "Kephas...Kephas" rather than "Petros...petra". As Iowegian pointed out, you can't have it both ways.
The difference is is that we know, from John 1:42, that Christ renamed Simon, Kephas. In light of that fact, any tortured distinction that our Protestant brethren keep trying to make regarding petros/petra is meaningless and futile. A fact which more and more Protestant scholars are admitting.
Now, as to my use of Greek rather than Aramaic in John 6, or "wishing to have Jesus speaking Greek". I used the Greek because, unlike the whole kephas/petros/petra situation, there is no Aramaic built into the NT that can shed any light on an exegesis of John 6. I think it is also safe to assume that we all believe that John wrote his Gospel in Greek. Since, in this instance, Greek is all we have, I used the Greek. It would be interesting though to see what Aramaic translations say regarding John 6 and trogo. I would think that the Aramaic NT manuscript tradition, although most likely less voluminous, is almost as ancient as the Greek.
Is that satisfactory? (A question not to be taken as condescension or sarcastic)
Hopefulpilgrim, I hope to have my response to your post #264 finished tomorrow.
As an aside, you know how we say, "It's all Greek to me", to express bewliderment. I wonder what the Greeks say?
Ora pro Ioannes Paulus II