New Covenant only for Jews?

[BreadOfLife]

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.

This is an astoundingly stupd coommant, given the context of our conversation.

There is NO scholarly opinion that states Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other in Greek.
The historical and Scriptural concensus is that they apoke in Aramaic. This is evidenced by many Aramaic words in the Gospel:
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” (Matt. 5:22)
Rabbouni meaning “teacher” (John 20:16)
Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46)
Hosanna meaning “O Lord, save us.” (Mark 11:9)
Maranatha meaning “Lord, come!” (1 Cor. 16:22)

Even some of the names are in Aramaic:
Boanerges – (Sons of Thunder)
Martha (Lady)
Thomas (Twin)
Magdalene (Tower)

As I have repeatedly provem - there is ABSOLUTELY NO WORD in Aramaic for "small rock".
Because Peter was a MAN - there was NO option to call him "Petra", which is a FEMINIE noun.

At THIS point - you're simply wallowing in denial.
YOUR argument that they did NOT dpeak in Aramaic, but in Greek, sinks like a lead balloon . . .

 

[covenantee]

This is an astoundingly stupd coommant, given the context of our conversation.

There is NO scholarly opinion that states Jesus and the Apostles spoke to each other in Greek.
The historical and Scriptural concensus is that they apoke in Aramaic. This is evidenced by many Aramaic words in the Gospel:
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” (Matt. 5:22)
Rabbouni meaning “teacher” (John 20:16)
Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46)
Hosanna meaning “O Lord, save us.” (Mark 11:9)
Maranatha meaning “Lord, come!” (1 Cor. 16:22)

Even some of the names are in Aramaic:
Boanerges – (Sons of Thunder)
Martha (Lady)
Thomas (Twin)
Magdalene (Tower)

As I have repeatedly provem - there is ABSOLUTELY NO WORD in Aramaic for "small rock".
Because Peter was a MAN - there was NO option to call him "Petra", which is a FEMINIE noun.

At THIS point - you're simply wallowing in denial.
YOUR argument that they did NOT dpeak in Aramaic, but in Greek, sinks like a lead balloon . . .

You've been flattened by the Spirit's Scriptural Steamroller.

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You've been flattened by the Spirit's Scriptural Steamroller.

Thanks for the entertainment.

TRANSLATION:
"Duhhhh, I can't come up with a decent logical argument"

That's what I thought - EPIC failure.. . .

Anybody else wanna give ot a try?

 

[Brakelite]

I have a question. Why did natural Aramaic speakers write their testimony of the life of Christ in Greek? If Aramaic was the more accurate in order to portray truth, why did they not write the gospels in Aramaic?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have a question. Why did natural Aramaic speakers write their testimony of the life of Christ in Greek? If Aramaic was the more accurate in order to portray truth, why did they not write the gospels in Aramaic?

Ummmm, I ALREADY addressed this.

Greel was the lingua franca (COMMON language) of 1st century Asia Minor and the territories surrounding it. To ANY Gentile - Aramaic would have been like writing it in Chinese because they wouldn't be able to umderstand it.

Jesus didn't give us a Bible.
He left us with a Church to interpret those things that many have trouble with (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18. Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23).
But many of you LEFT that Church, which He guaranteed would be guided to ALL TRUTH by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).
He DIDN'T give that guarantee to every individual.

 

[ewq1938]

But many of you LEFT that Church

Some left that pagan-infused Christian church long ago. None of US did because we were never part of it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Some left that pagan-infused Christian church long ago. None of US did because we were never part of it.

Hesus GUARANTTED thbat HIS Church would NOT succumb to darknes (Matt. 16:18).
The Church has had some bad players in it - but Jesus WARNED about that (Matt. 7:115-29) so this shouldn't have come as a surprise to you OR your Protesatnt Fathers. To say that His CHURCH went into apostasy is to render Him a LIAR.
You'd better make absolutelt certain that you want to do that.

There is not a SINGLE verse in ALL of the NT where Jesus tells His followes:
"If you disagree with my Church - just leave it and start your own."

 

[ewq1938]

"If you disagree with my Church - just leave it and start your own."

The RCC is not Christ's church. That's a false claim. What it is is one of the most pagan denominations that exist. There are definitely some good Christians in it but as a whole it is very infected by paganism.

Can't leave something one never was a part of.

 

[covenantee]

I have a question. Why did natural Aramaic speakers write their testimony of the life of Christ in Greek? If Aramaic was the more accurate in order to portray truth, why did they not write the gospels in Aramaic?

He's unable to explain why Matthew did not, in the Greek, render Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petros", which would have reflected Aramaic's singular rendering.

But Matthew didn't. He rendered the Greek as "Petros/Petra".

Because the Holy Spirit inspired him to clearly highlight the distinction between Peter the pebble; and Christ the Rock on Whom His Church is built.

Which of course detonates the fallacies of Peter as the rock of the church, the first pope, et al.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[Brakelite]

Ummmm, I ALREADY addressed this.

Greel was the lingua franca (COMMON language) of 1st century Asia Minor and the territories surrounding it. To ANY Gentile - Aramaic would have been like writing it in Chinese because they wouldn't be able to umderstand it.

I agree in as much as you've been willing to admit to. The church however spread the gospel as far as Britain well before the 4th century. The Celts, as far as I know, didn't speak Greek. But they did speak Gaelic, which I suspect the scriptures were translated into in order they understand the gospel. And the love and faithfulness of God would have ensured the holy Spirit guided those translations in order for truth to triumph over the pagan errors and idolatry of those lands. Patrick for example wasn't the first Christian in those lands, and he didn't learn the gospel from Greek speaking or Latin speaking evangelists, but his forbears would have heard the gospel from their own kin, the Galatians, and the Celt peoples of northern Italy, and southern France. Language and the scriptures developed as the gospel spread. And the truth of the church's foundation along with it. And nowhere, except in Rome, did anyone pay any attention to the Roman bishops as 'head honcho' until persecution gave them little option... And that not until the 6th century and beyond.

Jesus didn't give us a Bible.
He left us with a Church to interpret those things that many have trouble with (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18. Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23).
But many of you LEFT that Church, which He guaranteed would be guided to ALL TRUTH by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).
He DIDN'T give that guarantee to every individual.

What utter garbage. Who do you think you are to tell anyone that God's promises aren't for them as individuals... Particularly when God's word gives no indication otherwise. If the holy Spirit isn't granted individuals and speaks to them off truth and error, how is anyone to discern when their church has apostatized and should protest?

Hesus GUARANTTED thbat HIS Church would NOT succumb to darknes (Matt. 16:18).

Yet your church succumbed to darkness big time. The unnumbered millions who were murdered, who were tortured, at the hands of the prelates of Rome and their agents will rise up in the judgement and condemn Rome without mercy.
And don't you dare blame that on the state, or a "few bad apples". It was church policy to destroy all who refused to surrender and submit to papal authority. That policy hasn't been rescinded, and simply awaits and opportune time to be reawakened as it was in the dark ages, only on a universal scale as prophecy predicts.

 

[Brakelite]

He's unable to explain why Matthew did not, in the Greek, render Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petros", which would have reflected Aramaic's singular rendering.

But Matthew didn't. He rendered the Greek as "Petros/Petra".

Because the Holy Spirit inspired him to clearly highlight the distinction between Peter the pebble; and Christ the Rock on Whom His Church is built.

Which of course detonates the fallacies of Peter as the rock of the church, the first pope, et al.

Thank God for the Reformation.

Mmmm. And we haven't touched on apostolic succession. If the rock is but a pebble, what insignificance (comparatively to the Rock) the pebble's successors?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And THAT’S your response??
It’s utterly astounding to me that so many of you anti-Catholics live on such a voracious diet of denial, subterfuge and rejection.

I presented a rock-solid linguistic and Biblical case for Matt. 16:18, and you guys come back with this drivel because your cannot find a valid linguistic OR Scriptural refutation.
These are ALL highly-regarded Protestant sources – many of whom have dedicated their ENTIRE lives to the study of the Scriptures.

YOU, on the other hand, a poster on an obscure internet website who probably doesn’t even own a Bible can wallow in denial ‘til the cows come home . . .

Yawn....

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then why do you reject so much of it?

In John 6, Jesus says that His flesh is REAL food and His blood is REAL drink.

No, He did not. You have to be completely lacking in discernment to think He was saying that literally. What a joke.

At the Last Supper, He gave the Apostles instructions on how to do this sacramentally. - yet YOU completely reject the Eucharist.

I can give you MANY other examples of your disbelief . . .

We don't believe in your false doctrine. We believe in what is taught in scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree in as much as you've been willing to admit to. The church however spread the gospel as far as Britain well before the 4th century. The Celts, as far as I know, didn't speak Greek. But they did speak Gaelic, which I suspect the scriptures were translated into in order they understand the gospel. And the love and faithfulness of God would have ensured the holy Spirit guided those translations in order for truth to triumph over the pagan errors and idolatry of those lands. Patrick for example wasn't the first Christian in those lands, and he didn't learn the gospel from Greek speaking or Latin speaking evangelists, but his forbears would have heard the gospel from their own kin, the Galatians, and the Celt peoples of northern Italy, and southern France. Language and the scriptures developed as the gospel spread. And the truth of the church's foundation along with it. And nowhere, except in Rome, did anyone pay any attention to the Roman bishops as 'head honcho' until persecution gave them little option... And that not until the 6th century and beyond.

NOT sure why you went on this revisionist diatribe.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that Jesus and the Apostles spoke in Aramaic.

What utter garbage. Who do you think you are to tell anyone that God's promises aren't for them as individuals... Particularly when God's word gives no indication otherwise. If the holy Spirit isn't granted individuals and speaks to them off truth and error, how is anyone to discern when their church has apostatized and should protest?

I’m just a regular guy on an internet forum
The Sacred Word of Almighty GOD is what tells us about those promises.

Little hermeneutical rule that I don’t think you SDA and MOST Protestants are aware of:
When Jesus addressed and instructed the CROWDS – He was addressing everybody.
When He addressed and instructed His INNER CIRCLE – that was for the LEADERS of His Church.
ONLY the leaders of His Church were given the power to forgive or retain sins in His name and He ONLY breathed on THEM giving them this power (John 20:21-23).

This isn’t Rocket Science . . .

Yet your church succumbed to darkness big time. The unnumbered millions who were murdered, who were tortured, at the hands of the prelates of Rome and their agents will rise up in the judgement and condemn Rome without mercy.
And don't you dare blame that on the state, or a "few bad apples". It was church policy to destroy all who refused to surrender and submit to papal authority. That policy hasn't been rescinded, and simply awaits and opportune time to be reawakened as it was in the dark ages, only on a universal scale as prophecy predicts.

Your posts always start off sounding semi-intelligent – then you go off the SDA deep-end.

You’ve obviously been reading WAAAYYYYY too much of your foundresses (Ellen Whites) anti-Catholic fairy tales.
Reputable scholars agree that the “untold millions” that YOU claim is nothing more than historical revisionism.

I’ve heard some estimates on this anti-Catholic forum that over “50 Million people“ were killed during the Inquisition. IF this were true – there would be NO Europe because historians agree that there probably NOT even that many people alive during that time.

As to your FALSE claims that it was and remains the Catholic Church’s “Policy” – to “to destroy all who refused to surrender and submit to papal authority” – I would ask you to furnish the DOCUMENTS to this effect.

If you can’t – then ADMIT that you made it up.
[/QUOTE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

The RCC is not Christ's church. That's a false claim. What it is is one of the most pagan denominations that exist. There are definitely some good Christians in it but as a whole it is very infected by paganism.

Correct. There is NO such thing as the “RCC”.
I belong to the Catholic Church that was established over 2000 years ago

You can whine ALL day long about it NOT being Christ’s Church – but we have the SAME beliefs as the Early Church – and the Paper Trail to prove it.
NONE of your disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions can make this claim because you were ALL started by MEN in the 16th century and after.

Can't leave something one never was a part of.

I didn’t say YOU left. Your Protestant Fathers did – and YOU chose to follow the doctrines and precepts of THOSE men instead of Christ and His Church.
You guys couldn’t even stay faithful to them anymore than Christ .

MOST Protestants have abandoned many of the beliefs of your Protestant Fathers and have continued to invent NEW doctrines.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, He did not. You have to be completely lacking in discernment to think He was saying that literally. What a joke.


We don't believe in your false doctrine. We believe in what is taught in scripture.

John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

In verse 60, MANY of them said:
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Verse 61 tells us that Jesus was aware of what they were saying – abd He DOUBLED DOWN, basically scolding them for NOT having faith.:

Verse 66 states explicitly:
John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Did Jesus try to explain what He “REALLY” meant to them?
NO. He turned to the Twelve and says:

Verse 67:
“Do you ALSO want to leave?”

In the Gospels, Jesus USUALLY does this when a teaching is called into question – but NOT here. WHY doesn’t He do it here?
He didn’t even explain to the Twelve because He MEANT what He said.

The normal Greek word for the way a human “eats” is Phago.
HOWEVER – in John 6, the word Trogo is used, which is the way an ANIMAL rips apart its food and gnaws at it.

It might interest you to know that the Early Christians were accused by Romans and Jews alike for being “Cannibals” for their belief in the Eucharist.
WHY is that?

Sooooo – why don’t YOU explain what He “REALLY” meant – with Scriptural support, of course??


PS - Who is "WE"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yawn....

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John 6:53-58
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL DRINK. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

In verse 60, MANY of them said:
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Verse 61 tells us that Jesus was aware of what they were saying – abd He DOUBLED DOWN, basically scolding them for NOT having faith.:

Verse 66 states explicitly:
John 6:66
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Did Jesus try to explain what He “REALLY” meant to them?
NO. He turned to the Twelve and says:

Verse 67:
“Do you ALSO want to leave?”

In the Gospels, Jesus USUALLY does this when a teaching is called into question – but NOT here. WHY doesn’t He do it here?
He didn’t even explain to the Twelve because He MEANT what He said.

The normal Greek word for the way a human “eats” is Phago.
HOWEVER – in John 6, the word Trogo is used, which is the way an ANIMAL rips apart its food and gnaws at it.

It might interest you to know that the Early Christians were accused by Romans and Jews alike for being “Cannibals” for their belief in the Eucharist.
WHY is that?

Sooooo – why don’t YOU explain what He “REALLY” meant – with Scriptural support, of course??


PS - Who is "WE"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

That is all nonsense of epic proportions. The bread symbolically represented His body and the wine symbolically represented His blood. Simple as that. It's insane to think that He was being literal there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks for admitting that you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on . . .

No, I was admitting that you are boring me with your ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct. There is NO such thing as the “RCC”.
I belong to the Catholic Church that was established over 2000 years ago

You can whine ALL day long about it NOT being Christ’s Church – but we have the SAME beliefs as the Early Church – and the Paper Trail to prove it.
NONE of your disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions can make this claim because you were ALL started by MEN in the 16th century and after.

I didn’t say YOU left. Your Protestant Fathers did – and YOU chose to follow the doctrines and precepts of THOSE men instead of Christ and His Church.
You guys couldn’t even stay faithful to them anymore than Christ .

MOST Protestants have abandoned many of the beliefs of your Protestant Fathers and have continued to invent NEW doctrines.

Go pray to your Queen Mother Mary and worship your supposedly infallible Pope and leave us alone.