Catholic Ping!
Aramaic.
Aramaic.
Christ was also referred to having sisters as well as brothers. Tell me there’s no aramaic words for sister.
To call Mary and Joseph faithful and pious but not have them consummate their marriage the way faithful and pious Jews would have - after Jesus’ birth - is absurd. There was no command she was never to have relations with her husband even after Christ was born. No command to remain a virgin forever. Nowhere.
Most likely bi lingual ... He used Hebrew when addressing the scriptures in the temple.. as that was the language of the Jewish services.. In commerce he most likely used Aramaic
Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.....
(Not saying YOU)...You can’t limit God to what language He spoke/speaks. He created language.
Don’t you mean Mark 5:41?
“Talitha cuom” (Mk 8:41)
** The conversation had begun centered around the word “rock” in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 16:18), but quickly devolved into a debate about ancient languages. My friend held that the word “rock” couldn’t possibly refer to St. Peter because the Gospel was written in Greek, and the Greek words used in that passage are “petros” and “petra,” which mean “rock” and “small rock,” respectively. I pointed out that Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for rock is “kepha,” which means “big rock” or “boulder.”**
These are puzzling arguments - “Peter” supposedly being derived from “Petra”. The first person claims that the use of the word “Petra” cannot refer to Peter - an odd argument. The author, in an apparent attempt to prove that the reference is to Peter says that Jesus actually used the word “kepha” - which certainly must prove that it is Peter to whom he is referring.
Logically, the first argument supports the reference to Peter more than it disputes it, and the second, “kepha”, argument casts doubts on the reference rather than supporting it.
This guy claims to use basic apologetics...but apologetics demands a sound logical foundation, and he clearly has none. This is not apologetics, it is confusing.
He still speaks my language.
When drawing on his powers, he could speak any language.
In daily use, he spoke several. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, which was the lingua, franca of the area when addressing Jews visiting Jerusalem from foreign parts. Also, some Latin, the language of the current conquerors.
RE: What Language Did Jesus Speak?
That one’s easy.
South Philly-ese, with a touch of Hoboken dialect thrown in so New Jersey guys could understand him.
Jesus probably spoke the language that was commonly spoke among those peoples within which he moved. He probably knew Hebrew as he spoke in the synagogue at the age of 12/13 expounding the scriptures which I assume were written in Hebrew. Be that as it may the earliest christian scriptures, to my understanding, were written in Greek Koine.
First Century Jewish Ebonics.
Yet allowing that the normative language was Aramaic, as many evangelicals as Michael Brown does, does not settle the issue (and in any case it also does not translate in the RC perpetuated Petrine papacy, with the church looking to Peter reigning supreme in Rome as its the first of a line of assuredly infallible exalted heads, which is one of the many RC inventions not seen in the NT church)
And adding to the linguistical debate, another researcher finds,
...an Aramaic word-play -- I should say, a possible Aramaic word-play, that nobody really understands -- is foundational to Roman and papal authority.
Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)
Here’s Garland’s account:
C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. MoreIn any case, the linguistical debate is endless and on going, and the answer is to examine what was said in context and how this is understood in the rest of Scripture.
The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with. While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic, the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)
It is by the “rock of this faith” that the church not only exists but it gains its members. (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) And it is by the essential faith which Peter expressed that church overcomes: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1Jn, 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25) And which Peter himself confirms: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." (1 Pet 5:8-9)
Spoken language you can only guess at. In order to be understood he would have to speak the dialect of whomever he was speaking to at the time. Which doesn’t preclude him from being fluent in several languages current in that region at that time.
For written language we could use the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence of the languages that were current at the time- we see Hebrew, four varieties of Aramaic, Greek and some Latin.
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts?locale=en_US
To all,
Please let me know what you think about these two translations.
1) Lamasa Bible (translated from George M. Lamasa). According to wikipediam “It was derived, both Old and New Testaments, from the Syriac Peshitta, the Bible used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Syriac Christian traditions.” When you think the Christians there are giving up their lives every day for their love of Jesus Christ, far more dedicated than your average Christian here, I personally would like to see their translation and compare verses to other translations.
2) The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). This was actually found in my yard. It was as it ‘fell’ from someone’s car and bounced in to my yard from the street. It is a nice little bible, leather bond and all. It looks like it took a tumble with the leather a little beat up on one side. I never really heard of the HCSB before. But I am just a ‘novice’ so to speak. Maybe God was trying to tell me something*.
Thanks all!
-t
To all,
Please let me know what you think about these two translations.
1) Lamsa Bible (translated from George M. Lamsa). According to wikipediam “It was derived, both Old and New Testaments, from the Syriac Peshitta, the Bible used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Syriac Christian traditions.” When you think the Christians there are giving up their lives every day for their love of Jesus Christ, far more dedicated than your average Christian here, I personally would like to see their translation and compare verses to other translations.
2) The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). This was actually found in my yard. It was as it ‘fell’ from someone’s car and bounced in to my yard from the street. It is a nice little bible, leather bond and all. It looks like it took a tumble with the leather a little beat up on one side. I never really heard of the HCSB before. But I am just a ‘novice’ so to speak. Maybe God was trying to tell me something*.
Thanks all!
-t
PS:
I didn’t mention George Lamsa reported his was translated from ‘original Aramaic’ writings.
Wow. Something important is being overlooked. The gospels were written by men, not Jesus, decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in their daily life and teachings, including in remembering the events that had happened. Do you not think the Holy Spirit brought to their ready recollection the meaning of WHAT was said, regardless of the language used? So if Jesus said and meant “blessed are you, Little Pebble, and upon THIS Huge Bedrock I will build my Church,” why would you be surprised that a Greek written record of it properly lists the Greek words for little pebble and bedrock, which are different, and instead doesn’t say “blessed are you, Bedrock of the Church, for upon YOU, Bedrock of the Church, will I build my Church” ? Perhaps because the latter matches Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church was built on Peter, and not that Jesus’ Church is actually built on the Faith that Jesus is the Son of God?
So simple.
The Catholic church says the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. Are you saying the RCC is wrong? The RCC also says the apocryphal books are almost entirely written in Greek.
Jesus would have spoken 3 languages for sure and possibly 4 or 5 languages.
More important than what language Jesus used when he said this or that, is are we obeying what he said?
The word “cousin” is used in the NT. Brothers and or sisters are not words for cousin. To claim such is make the Lord the author of the word of God an incompetent.
Where the word of God says cousin we can be sure it means cousin. Where the word of God says brother we can be sure it means brother. Where the word of God says sister we can be sure it means sister. Part of the faith is trusting the Holy Spirit, not trying to make him out to be incompetent.
You seem more interested in defending the Catholic church than honoring God for who he is. He is faithful and his word is faithful.