[Mad Dawg]

We are talking about a statement made in Aramaic and remembered and written in vulgar Greek. I wouldn't bet the ranch on an interpretation that relied on the text alone.

To my way of thinking that's another reason to rely on holy tradition (as opposed to "the traditions of men"). Obviously there is another view which suggests that Jesus didn't speak any language very clearly.

I have seen all I need to see about this kind of debate. What is the maxim? If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.

Pound away, and much good may it do you. (Not you personally, you understand, I hope)

[Claud]

We are talking about a statement made in Aramaic and remembered and written in vulgar Greek. I wouldn't bet the ranch on an interpretation that relied on the text alone.

I wouldn't either necessarily, but when folks don't see the value in Holy Tradition and firmly believe that it does nothing but "nullify" the word of God, it doesn't do much good to quote it.

Rest assured, if the interest and opportunity arises to quote the Church Fathers, and how they viewed this passage, I will do so. :)