Replies

Sigh.... you haven't read the posts, have you?

Sure I have. Every one.

Let me repeat that more clearly for you.

Gee, thanks.

1. Jesus spoke Aramaic

No, it is assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't hold that assumption to be true.

2. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

Only if one assumes that Jesus spoke Aramaic. To impose Greek or Aramaic assumptions upon a man who was quintessentially Hebrew, not only in language (as I assume), but in manner of thought, is just a ludicrous position to take.

It is far more likely that Jesus spoke Hebrew... And that Matthew (while no longer extant) was written originally in Hebrew, as was the book of Hebrews (this is more important than you know).

But that is not real important to the translation of this single verse. It does not stand alone. To understand what it means, one needs only to compare it to concepts throughout the Bible. Then any ambiguity just simply falls away.

To presume some dynasty founded upon this single verse, one would have to willfully ignore the purpose for which Christ came, as stated overwhelmingly. He came to institute a *direct* method of accessing the Father. For what possible reason would that entail yet another succession, and yet another hierarchy, not to mention yet another imposing priesthood?

It simply doesn't make any sense at all.

FWIW when I was in seminary they said that by the first century AD the use of Hebrew was confined to liturgies. I have no idea what they based that on.

On what do you base the idea that Jesus (and the 12?) spoke Hebrew?

We used to razz the NT prof at seminary that Hebrew was the language spoken in heaven (because Paul said he heard a voice speaking the the Hebrew dialect) and he insisted (but did not explain) that it was Aramaic.

My Brown,Driver,Briggs Hebrew lexicon says that KePh (= rock) is unattested in the OT and is only found in the plural in two places Jeremiah 4:29 and Job 30:4. The little entry speculates that it is a loan word from Aramaic.

As I say, FWIW.

1. Jesus spoke Aramaic

No, it is assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't hold that assumption to be true.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, but most scholars believe that Jesus and His apostles spoke Aramaic.
Your opinion is in the distinct minority. Where is the evidence that this was the case? Also, it's not an “assumption” that Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus

http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/TSmgenB2.html

http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/pages/series/what-language-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter.html

“He came to institute a *direct* method of accessing the Father.”

_________________________________________________________________________
If that’s the case, then why did Jesus bother to establish a Church founded on the Rock of St. Peter (Matthew 16:18-19), giving him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and conferring on him the power of binding and loosing?

Jesus told his apostles,
Luke 10:16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

He also gave them the power to forgive sins or NOT to forgive them:
John 20:23 “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

He commanded them to consecrate the bread and wine and transform them into His Body and Blood, just as He did at the Last Supper:
Luke 22:19 “Do this for a commemoration of Me.”

He gave them the Great Commission to baptize and teach in His name:
Matthew 28:19 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, ; teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.”

This visible Church is called by St. Paul:
1 Timothy 3:15 ...the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Why would Jesus do all these things if he merely intended to establish a “direct”, person-to-person access to the Father without any intermediary on Earth?

I’m not saying that’s not also available to a Christian (praying to the Father and asking Him for anything in Jesus’ name. e.g.), but it’s certainly not all there is to Christ’s mission. Not by a long shot.

If I am understanding your point - hierarchy per se is bad / evil and not within God's plan. Is that accurate?

No, it is assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I don't hold that assumption to be true

Pray tell why? Why would a man in the Aramaic speaking world talking to a primarily Aramaic speaking audience NOT speak Aramaic but rather a more elite language (Greek)?

Furthermore, the point stil holds if you consider purely Koine Greek --> Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine, both words meaning rock. It would not be possible to call Simeon Petra which is a feminine name, hence the Greek word Petros used. It's a question of Grammar, you know.

As an aside -- if you speak French or to some extent German, you would see the complexities that gender assignment of common nouns can lead to

It is far more likely that Jesus spoke Hebrew... And that Matthew (while no longer extant) was written originally in Hebrew, as was the book of Hebrews (this is more important than you know).

Whoa, whoa there -- you're mixing up the name for the people (Hebrews) with the name for their language (Hebrew). The Israelites were called Habiru by the egyptians.

Their language, Hebrew was of West Semitic origin.

however, by the 4th century BC, the RELATED language of Aram (Aramaic, another Semitic language) became the lingua franca of the middle east, not to be replaced by Greek until well into the CHristian era

Hebrew was reduced to being a language of ritual, just as Sanskrit was already replaced by Prakrit and Pali in India.