New Covenant only for Jews?

[Johann]

I wassn't making a case for the Vulgate - but for the fact that Jesus and His Apostels souke ARAMAIC - not Greek.
This single fact DESTROYS the notion that Jesus referred to Simon as a "Little Stone".

Sorry, I would disagree with you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Friend, I stand by what I have posted, since you are very selective with "sources" on the Internet.

And for your information, I am not against Catholics.

"Selective"?
They're 12 random Protestant sources who ALL make the argument that the "Rock" is Peter.

How many would I need to provide before you change your mind?
WHICH Protestant sources are correct??

And I wasan't referrig to YOU personally as an anti-Catholic - I was simply making a generalization about the Petros/Petra position.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, I would disagree with you.

Care yo explain WHY you "disagree" with me with regard to the fact that Aramaic doesn't differentiate between rocks?
I'd love to hear your explanation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Even Paul refers to Peter as "Cephas" in his letters because it is a Greek transliteration for the Aramaic, "Kepha" (Rock).

 

[BreadOfLife]

And I have provided scholarly resources DEBUNKING your claim re Peter and that he was the pope.

Actually, you haven't.
You provided some textbook definitions of words colored by your OWN opinion.

The evidence I provided wasn't MY opinion - but those of twelve Greek/Scripture scholars.

Besides , in order to "debunk" that Peter was in charge - YOU need to address the following Scriptural evidence - all of theEarly Church writing on the matters, notwithstanding . . .

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) when ges was NOT the first Apostle chosen if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than ALL the other disciples put combinedif He was not in charge??

 

[Johann]

Even Paul refers to Peter as "Cephas" in his letters because it is a Greek transliteration for the Aramaic, "Kepha" (Rock).

I have already answered you, no need to repeat myself.

By the way....
What Verses in the New Testament Are Aramaic?
BY ANN NAFFZIGER AUGUST 2, 2019
The earliest surviving New Testament written in Palestinian Aramaic, a language similar to what Jesus used.
The earliest surviving New Testament written in Palestinian Aramaic, a language similar to what Jesus used.
Question: I know the New Testament was written in Greek. However I’ve been told that there are a few verses from Jesus in Aramaic. Are you able to share with me exactly what verses in the New Testament are Aramaic?

You are correct. The New Testament was written in Greek with only a few Aramaic words or phrases scattered here and there. They are generally recognizable because when you are reading along in English, or hear the Scriptures read aloud, these words jump out at you:

Talitha cum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
Ephphatha meaning “Be opened.” (Mark 7:34)
Abba meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36)
Raca meaning “fool” (Matthew 5:22)
Rabbouni meaning “teacher” (John 20:16)
Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)
Hosanna meaning “O Lord, save us.” (Mark 11:9)
Maranatha meaning “Lord, come!” (1 Corinthians 16:22)

RELATED: How I Became an Unlikely Member of a Bible Study

There are a handful of other words and names that have a clear Semitic origin, but it’s not known whether they are strictly from Aramaic or biblical Hebrew. Some examples of these are: mammon, Bartholomew, Barabbas, Boanerges, Gethsemane, and Golgotha.

See, I'm nice enough to give you the link

What Verses in the New Testament Are Aramaic? - Busted Halo

Flip through the New Testament to find the Aramaic verses that jump out at you.

bustedhalo.com

 

[Johann]

Care yo explain WHY you "disagree" with me with regard to the fact that Aramaic doesn't differentiate between rocks?
I'd love to hear your explanation.

Thou art Peter (οὺ εἶ Πέτρος)
Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ.” Christ replies, “Thou art Peter.” Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (Joh_1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning.

In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (“Iliad,” vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (“Iliad,” xvi., 784).
On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέρᾳ)
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer (“Odyssey,” ix., 243), the rock (πέτρην) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (“Odyssey,” ix., 484).

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the “Father in Heaven.”

The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the “chief corner-stone,” but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him.

For instance, Peter himself (1Pe_2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1Pe_2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Rev_21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Eph_2:20, it is said, “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.”

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.

“The word πέτρα,” says Edersheim, “was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said' 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss” (“Life and Times of Jesus”).

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Act_1:15; Act_2:14, Act_2:37; Act_3:12; Act_4:8; Act_5:15, Act_5:29; Act_9:34, Act_9:40; Act_10:25, Act_10:26; Gal_1:15.
Church (ἐκκλησίαν)
ἐκ out, καλέω, to call or summon. This is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Originally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Act_19:39. The Septuagint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Genesis 28:3), where assembly is given for multitude in margin. In New Testament, of the congregation of Israel (Act_7:38); but for this there is more commonly employed συναγωγή, of which synagogue is a transcription; σύν, together, ἄγω, to bring (Act_13:43). In Christ's words to Peter the word ἐκκλησία acquires special emphasis from the opposition implied in it to the synagogue. The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as ἐκκλησία, without being confounded with the συναγωγή, the Jewish community. See Act_5:11; Act_8:1; Act_12:1; Act_14:23, Act_14:27, etc. Nevertheless συναγωγή is applied to a Christian assembly in Jas_2:2, while ἐπισυναγωγή (gathering or assembling together) is found in 2Th_2:1; Heb_10:25. Both in Hebrew and in New Testament usage ἐκκλησία implies more than a collective or national unity; rather a community based on a special religious idea and established in a special way. In the New Testament the term is used also in the narrower sense of a single church, or a church confined to a particular place. So of the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Rom_16:5); the church at Corinth, the churches in Judea, the church at Jerusalem, etc.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have already answered you, no need to repeat myself.

By the way....
What Verses in the New Testament Are Aramaic?
BY ANN NAFFZIGER AUGUST 2, 2019
The earliest surviving New Testament written in Palestinian Aramaic, a language similar to what Jesus used.
The earliest surviving New Testament written in Palestinian Aramaic, a language similar to what Jesus used.
Question: I know the New Testament was written in Greek. However I’ve been told that there are a few verses from Jesus in Aramaic. Are you able to share with me exactly what verses in the New Testament are Aramaic?

You are correct. The New Testament was written in Greek with only a few Aramaic words or phrases scattered here and there. They are generally recognizable because when you are reading along in English, or hear the Scriptures read aloud, these words jump out at you:

Talitha cum meaning “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41)
Ephphatha meaning “Be opened.” (Mark 7:34)
Abba meaning “Father” (Mark 14:36)
Raca meaning “fool” (Matthew 5:22)
Rabbouni meaning “teacher” (John 20:16)
Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)
Hosanna meaning “O Lord, save us.” (Mark 11:9)
Maranatha meaning “Lord, come!” (1 Corinthians 16:22)

RELATED: How I Became an Unlikely Member of a Bible Study

There are a handful of other words and names that have a clear Semitic origin, but it’s not known whether they are strictly from Aramaic or biblical Hebrew. Some examples of these are: mammon, Bartholomew, Barabbas, Boanerges, Gethsemane, and Golgotha.

See, I'm nice enough to give you the link

What Verses in the New Testament Are Aramaic? - Busted Halo

Flip through the New Testament to find the Aramaic verses that jump out at you.

bustedhalo.com

First of all - I NEVER stated that the NT was written in Aramaic.so I don’t know WHY you’re asking.

HOWEVER, the Gospel of Matthew was purportedly originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and THEN copies int Greek, according to 2nd century Church Fathers,  Papias of Hierapolis and Irenaeus of Lyons.

The rest of your argument SINKS like a leaky boat – and here’s why: Hebrew was used MAINLY by Jewish leaders, teachers and scholars in the 1st century.
Aramaic, on the other hand, was the common language of the people in Israel. – and Greek was the common international language.
What Language Did Jesus Speak?

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Why do some claim that Paul is the one and Peter is not ?
Just because Paul is clamed to of got up Peter ?
No Paul did not get up Peter at all, he was just pointing out a point and Peter is not a Leader in the Carnal sense ? and Carnal people can not get their head around that. So they boast of Paul being the one.

Just because Peter is the leader does not make him Lord it over everyone ? Christians do not do that at all, did Jesus do such ?

I did not see Pope JP II or Pope Ben dictate over the RCC, but Pope Francis is a different kettle from them.

The Media love Pope Frances !
The Media hated Pope JP II and Pope Ben full on 24/7 ranting against them with so many lies.
But Pope Frances is a Freemason, such are of this world and he never mentions Christ Jesus un less he can not get away with it, he says god ? just like a Freemason does. Freemasons idolise gods and religions, that is clear.

The True Catholic Church is One ! and to get their you have to be truly born again of the Holy Spirit. One does not sell out to this world that Jesus pointed out that is full of deceptions and delusions.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thou art Peter (οὺ εἶ Πέτρος)
Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ.” Christ replies, “Thou art Peter.” Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (Joh_1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called, not to the giving of the name, but to its meaning.

In classical Greek the word means a piece of rock, as in Homer, of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector (“Iliad,” vii., 270), or of Patroclus grasping and hiding in his hand a jagged stone (“Iliad,” xvi., 784).
On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέρᾳ)
The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). Used of a ledge of rocks or a rocky peak. In Homer (“Odyssey,” ix., 243), the rock (πέτρην) which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which two-and-twenty wagons could not remove; and the rock which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created by its fall a wave in the sea which drove the ships back toward the land (“Odyssey,” ix., 484).

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, in a sense defined by his previous confession, and as enlightened by the “Father in Heaven.”

The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the “chief corner-stone,” but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him.

For instance, Peter himself (1Pe_2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and, in 1Pe_2:5, addresses the church as living stones. In Rev_21:14, the names of the twelve apostles appear in the twelve foundation-stones of the heavenly city; and in Eph_2:20, it is said, “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (i.e., laid by the apostles and prophets), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.”

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men.

“The word πέτρα,” says Edersheim, “was used in the same sense in Rabbinic language. According to the Rabbins, when God was about to build his world, he could not rear it on the generation of Enos, nor on that of the flood, who brought destruction upon the world; but when he beheld that Abraham would arise in the future, he said' 'Behold, I have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' The parallel between Abraham and Peter might be carried even further. If, from a misunderstanding of the Lord's promise to Peter, later Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss” (“Life and Times of Jesus”).

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone. See Acts, Act_1:15; Act_2:14, Act_2:37; Act_3:12; Act_4:8; Act_5:15, Act_5:29; Act_9:34, Act_9:40; Act_10:25, Act_10:26; Gal_1:15.
Church (ἐκκλησίαν)
ἐκ out, καλέω, to call or summon. This is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Originally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Act_19:39. The Septuagint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Genesis 28:3), where assembly is given for multitude in margin. In New Testament, of the congregation of Israel (Act_7:38); but for this there is more commonly employed συναγωγή, of which synagogue is a transcription; σύν, together, ἄγω, to bring (Act_13:43). In Christ's words to Peter the word ἐκκλησία acquires special emphasis from the opposition implied in it to the synagogue. The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as ἐκκλησία, without being confounded with the συναγωγή, the Jewish community. See Act_5:11; Act_8:1; Act_12:1; Act_14:23, Act_14:27, etc. Nevertheless συναγωγή is applied to a Christian assembly in Jas_2:2, while ἐπισυναγωγή (gathering or assembling together) is found in 2Th_2:1; Heb_10:25. Both in Hebrew and in New Testament usage ἐκκλησία implies more than a collective or national unity; rather a community based on a special religious idea and established in a special way. In the New Testament the term is used also in the narrower sense of a single church, or a church confined to a particular place. So of the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Rom_16:5); the church at Corinth, the churches in Judea, the church at Jerusalem, etc.

There you go again arguing for the Greek – when they DIDN’T even speak it to each other.
If you’re NOT going to address the reality of the Aramaic – then your argument is moot.

You keep deflecting and basing your entire argument on the Greek – when they SPOKE in Aramaic. This is the overwhelming consensus of Biblical and historical scholarship. They’re NOT simply the opinions of this Catholic poster.

Finally – as to context – you need to look at the WHOLE picture. Did Jesus call him “Peter” prior to Matt. 16? Yes, according to John 1:42.
HOWEVER, in Matt. 16:18-19, He singles out Peter and gives him Authority – before the others

If Peter wasn’t being given charge – you need to address the overwhelming Biblical evidence I presented in post #625 . . .

 

[covenantee]

Do you even understand WHAT a "Codez" is??

I don't understand what a "Codez" is. Neither do you.

If it says "Petros/Petra" - it's because it was simply COPYING the original manuscript.

Of course. And why did the original manuscript say "Petros/Petra", rather than "Petra/Petra" or "Petros/Petros"?

Because the Holy Spirit inspired it as "Petros/Petra".

Are you still denying the Holy Spirit inspiration of that Scripture?

There is NO word for "small stone" in Aramaic - just RICK.

Who is RICK?


There is a plethora of Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the earliest such manuscript which renders Matthew 16:18 as either "Petra/Petra", or as "Petros/Petros", consistent with the Aramaic?

 

[Johann]

Actually, you haven't.
You provided some textbook definitions of words colored by your OWN opinion.

The evidence I provided wasn't MY opinion - but those of twelve Greek/Scripture scholars.

Besides , in order to "debunk" that Peter was in charge - YOU need to address the following Scriptural evidence - all of theEarly Church writing on the matters, notwithstanding . . .

a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) when ges was NOT the first Apostle chosen if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than ALL the other disciples put combinedif He was not in charge??

There you go again arguing for the Greek – when they DIDN’T even speak it to each other.
If you’re NOT going to address the reality of the Aramaic – then your argument is moot.

C'mon friend, you want to tell me the whole NT was written in Aramaic?
Why kick against the pricks?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't understand what a "Codez" is. Neither do you.

Of course. And why did the original manuscript say "Petros/Petra", rather than "Petra/Petra" or "Petros/Petros"?

Because the Holy Spirit inspired it as "Petros/Petra".

Are you still denying the Holy Spirit inspiration of that Scripture?

Who is RICK?

THANK YOU for illustrating your complete failure to actually address these point by instead pointing to 2 obvious TYPOS . . .

There is a plethora of Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the earliest such manuscript which renders Matthew 16:18 as either "Petra/Petra", or as "Petros/Petros", consistent with the Aramaic?

FIRST of all - your last question doesn't make sense grammatically.

Secondly - Greek is NOT som kind of "holy language" that God ordained for the Scrptureds.
It was simply the lingua franca (common language) of the day. If they hsad written the NT on Chinese - MOST of the world wouldn't have understood.

Do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

C'mon friend, you want to tell me the whole NT was written in Aramaic?
Why kick against the pricks?

Why it it that anti Catholics can NEVER stay on track?
Point me to a SINGLE post where I made the claim that the entire NT was written in Arqamaic.
In post #628, I made this emphatic statement:
First of all - I NEVER stated that the NT was written in Aramaic.so I don’t know WHY you’re asking.

If you want to have an intelloigent converdsation - then keep it HONEST, huh?
Uf you are unable to address a point - then just ADMIT it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why do some claim that Paul is the one and Peter is not ?
Just because Paul is clamed to of got up Peter ?
No Paul did not get up Peter at all, he was just pointing out a point and Peter is not a Leader in the Carnal sense ? and Carnal people can not get their head around that. So they boast of Paul being the one.

Just because Peter is the leader does not make him Lord it over everyone ? Christians do not do that at all, did Jesus do such ?

I did not see Pope JP II or Pope Ben dictate over the RCC, but Pope Francis is a different kettle from them.

The Media love Pope Frances !
The Media hated Pope JP II and Pope Ben full on 24/7 ranting against them with so many lies.
But Pope Frances is a Freemason, such are of this world and he never mentions Christ Jesus un less he can not get away with it, he says god ? just like a Freemason does. Freemasons idolise gods and religions, that is clear.

The True Catholic Church is One ! and to get their you have to be truly born again of the Holy Spirit. One does not sell out to this world that Jesus pointed out that is full of deceptions and delusions.

There are TWO main reasons why:
Ignorance and the rejection of Christ's Church.

In order to follow the prideful ways and invented doctrinesof the Protestant Revolk - you have to put ALL of your trust in MEN, instead of God . . .

 

[covenantee]

THANK YOU for illustrating your complete failure to actually address these point by instead pointing to 2 obvious TYPOS . . .

FIRST of all - your last question doesn't make sense grammatically.

Secondly - Greek is NOT som kind of "holy language" that God ordained for the Scrptureds.
It was simply the lingua franca (common language) of the day. If they hsad written the NT on Chinese - MOST of the world wouldn't have understood.

Do your homework . . .

It makes perfect sense grammatically. Apparently it doesn't make sense to you cognitively.

Or is that because you have no answer for it?

Here it is again. What don't you understand?


There is a plethora of Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the earliest such manuscript which renders Matthew 16:18 as either "Petra/Petra", or as "Petros/Petros", consistent with Aramaic's singular rendering?


Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It makes perfect sense grammatically. Apparently it doesn't make sense to you cognitively.

Or is that because you have no answer for it?

Here it is again. What don't you understand?


There is a plethora of Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the earliest such manuscript which renders Matthew 16:18 as either "Petra/Petra", or as "Petros/Petros", consistent with the Aramaic?

For about the 100th time now on thhis thread - I will regurgitsate the following linguistic fact:
MANY words in Aramaic CANNOT be directly translated into Greek - and vice versa.
This is true for EVERY language on the planet.

Greek employes masculine and feminie nouns and vers - as does Spanish, Italian and most other European languages.
Here are some examples:
In Spanish, the word "curious" depends on WHO is being soken about. For a woman. it's "Curiosa". For a man, it' "Curioso".
Table = "LA mesa" (feminine)
Clock = "EL reloj" (masculine)

Simon could NOT be referred to as "Petra" because iut us a FEMININE noun and would be considered an ERROR to refer to jm as this.

Jesus spoke ARAMAIC - not Greek. "Kepha" is the ONLY word for "Rock" in Aramaic. There is NO word for "small rock" or "large rock".

Here is a questrion for ALL of you:
There are THREE words in Greek for "Rock":
Petra
Petros
Lithos
There is NO other Greek word for "Rock" that even SOUNDS like "Kepha"
If Jesus TRULY meant to call Peter "snall rock" (Preos) - then WHY does Paul refer to him as "Cephas" (Kepha) in his letters??
Why doesn't he call him "Petros" if his letters are written in Greek anywat??

UNTILL you actually address these points, instead of glossing over them - NONE of you have a Scriptural or linguistic eg to stand on.

 

[covenantee]

For about the 100th time now on thhis thread - I will regurgitsate the following linguistic fact:
MANY words in Aramaic CANNOT be directly translated into Greek - and vice versa.
This is true for EVERY language on the planet.

Greek employes masculin and feminie nouns and vers - as does Spanich, Italian and most other European languages.
Here are some examples:
In Spanish, the word "curious" depends on WHO is being soken about. For a woman. it's "Curiosa". For a man, it' "Curioso".
Table = "LA mesa" (feminine)
Clock = "EL reloj" (masculine)

Simon could NOT be referred to as "Petra" because iut us a FEMININE noun and would be considered an ERROR to refer to jm as this.

Jesus spoke ARAMAIC - not Greek. "Kepha" is the ONLY word for "Rock" in Aramaic. There is NO word for "small rosk: or "large rock".
Here is a questrion for ALL of you:
If Jesus TRULY meant to call Peter "snall rock" (Preos) - then WHY does Paul refer to him as "Caephas" (Kepha) in his letters??
Why doesn't he call him "Petros" if his letters are written in Greek anywat??

UNTILL you actually address these points, instead of glossing over them - NONE of you have a Scriptural or linguistic eg to stand on.

Either you enjoy acting the fool, or you're so hopelessly indoctrinated in papist ideology that you're unable to engage in rational dialogue.

I didn't ask for your illogical and irrelevant opinions.

I asked a simple question. I'll further clarify it to conform to your stricture:


There is a plethora of Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the earliest such manuscript which renders Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petros", consistent with Aramaic's singular rendering?


If the answer is "I don't know" or "There is no Greek manuscript which renders the verse consistent with the Aramaic", then just say so.

If you have the courage.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Either you enjoy acting the fool, or you're so hopelessly indoctrinated in papist ideology that you're unable to engage in rational dialogue.

I didn't ask for your illogical and irrelevant opinions.

I asked a simple question. I'll further clarify it to conform to your stricture:


There is a plethora of Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew.

What is the earliest such manuscript which renders Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petros", consistent with Aramaic's singular rendering?


If the answer is "I don't know" or "There is no Greek manuscript which renders the verse consistent with the Aramaic", then just say so.

If you have the courage.

Once again, you're being evasice because you CANNOIT address the points I made.

Your question is irrelebant. Even if EVERY SINGLE manuscript was written in Greek and used "Petros" - it is irrelevant. This is NOT a question about manuscripturs - but one of LOGIC based on Scriptural and linguistic reasoning.

In fact, for the sake of THIS argument - let's assume that there are ZERO manyscripts in ANY other language than Greek - and they ALL say "Petros".
You STILL have a problem with Pauls Letters and the use of "Cepha" instead of the other Greek words for "Rock" (Petra, Petros, Lithos).
How do YOU reconcil this?

 

[covenantee]

Once again, you're being evasice because you CANNOIT address the points I made.

Your question is irrelebant. Even if EVERY SINGLE manuscript was written in Greek and used "Petros" - it is irrelevant. This is NOT a question about manuscripturs - but one of LOGIC based on Scriptural and linguistic reasoning.

In fact, for the sake of THIS argument - let's assume that there are ZERO manyscripts in ANY other language than Greek - and they ALL say "Petros".
You STILL have a problem with Pauls Letters and the use of "Cepha" instead of the other Greek words for "Rock" (Petra, Petros, Lithos).
How do YOU reconcil this?

If the Aramaic singular rendering was the applicable rendering, then we would see that reflected in at least one Greek manuscript as "Petros/Petros".

We do not.

Thank you for confirming that "Petros/Petra" was and is the Holy Spirit's inspired rendering.

End of story.