Replies

“That is nothing if not decietful.”

What I have done is to present valid counterarguments that, even in this last lengthy missive of yours, you fail to address in any meaningful way.

You have begun putting words in my mouth, i.e. “You are arguing on the side of certainty equating to a factual translation existing absent the translation,” to accuse me of deceit, and to make other unwarranted and intentionally slighting comments. This discussion, therefore, has become a near occasion of sin, which I am going to avoid by withdrawing from it.

Just as a couple of last examples of this unwarranted behavior, I’ll cite this statement of yours: “Furthermore, we have to ask a simple question, why the two words? It is the underlying question that must be answered.” This has already been answered, in the Staples article and in a note of mine where I quoted the argument. There’s really no excuse for your having missed it.

And this: “First to say that two words aren't supported in the Aramaic”

No one said that. I cited two words for rock in Aramaic myself—cephas and evna.

Your argument from petra and petros has been completely and fully rebutted, and you have failed to address any of the evidence for the proposition that the Greek is at least partly translated from Hebrew or Aramaic.

Your arguments regarding Paul are equally misguided, but I don’t anticipate that telling you why would have any effect other than to waste my time, so, bye bye now.

Ah, I see, claim false accusation on the other side then run off and claim victory. LOL. Haven't seen that one before (yes I have). How long did it take you to stitch all that nonsense together? (sorry, borrowing a page from your own book)..

So it lays at this - No Aramaic original has ever been found and may or may not exist or have ever existed. Saying it did, doesn't display the work itself for review. Until an actual original is found, there is no resolution that allows for the changing of the Greek words used. The Greek words are not merely "rock", They are literally or figuratively "a piece of rock", petros, and "a mass of rock", petra. They are distinguishable one from the other. If there were need for it, there is no reason the passage could not read 'you are petros and upon this petros' - it does not read this way.

This is a state of being language where words used are used for a reason. As Limbaugh says, "words mean things". Petros does not equal petra. Again, generically, black widow and brown recluse are understood generically to be spiders just as petros and petra are understood generically to be kinds of rock. But when one says black widow, one does not mean brown recluse. As such if one says petra, one does not mean petros. If one says agapo, one does not mean agapi. You'll note the two words look the same and have the same root but are entirely different in meaning. This is the way Greek works despite attempts to obfuscate. If Christ hadn't specified the use of petra as foundation, and he hadn't used two seperate and specific words, then you might have an argument. But due to the fact that Christ states he is founding upon petra - he is begging the bedrock meaning of petra - not a generic sense of 'rock'. Petros is not bedrock, it isn't foundation. Nor in scripture was it ever used to say such a thing.

Matthew 16:18 is also not the place wherein Peter was named.
It was in John in the first chapter 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, which is by interpretation, A stone. So whether it be Cephas or Kepha(s) (chaldee), both mean "a stone" according to the translators. The word used for some odd reason is petros, not petra. You'll note that for definition's sake, the word is not being used as a name at the moment. Cephas and petra do not mean the same thing. The root of the Aramaic word Cephas is Chaldee - Kepha, which also is not translated petra; but, rather petros. How odd, huh?

You may or may not be starting from your conclusion. But with regard to this particular issue, Rome is. The Greek doesn't support what they're trying to establish. Nor does your statement establish prior existance of an Aramaic text - much less one that removes valid distinctions made in the Greek. As such, the argument is not rebutted. The greek language pre-existed the Roman Catholic Religion and cannot be changed retroactively to suite Rome's wishes. Nor shall it be.