The Depravity of Mankind

[Augustine]

Damocles,

If the Church is founded on Peter, this raises two logical questions:

1. Why does the Bible say it is founded on Christ? It says He is the chief cornerstone; the IMMOVABLE ROCK. Because you reject Biblical inerrancy, it is acceptable (in your mind) to assume a contradiction in the text. For myself, it is not. Therefore I accept Matthew 16:18 in context with other parts of scripture.

2. Why does the Greek NT, as sent out to the churches, establish a clear distinction between petros and petra? Christ cannot be referring to Peter. In fact, a switch in gender and person occurs, indicating that Christ is in fact switching the subject.

If Peter were the Pope, then surely such a distinction would not exist even in the Greek text. But ultimately this comes down to faith. I believe the Greek NT is inspired; you do not. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for you to assume the Greek NT is corrupt, whereas I embrace it as the inspired Word of God.

Lastly, can you demonstrate that Peter was in Rome, ever?

On a closing note, I encourage you to read this:

http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html

A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church."

The claims of the Roman Church are based on a mistranslation of Greek text to Aramaic, or a poorly written Aramaic replication. Isn't it easier to accept that the NT sent out to the churches is the true, inspired Word of God, containing no contradictions?

If Peter was the Pope, he didn't do a very good job of stopping those corrupted manuscripts from spreading to every last one of the Gentile churches. So much for the gates of Hell not overcoming it.

 

[Damocles]

Damocles,

If the Church is founded on Peter, this raises two logical questions:

1. Why does the Bible say it is founded on Christ? It says He is the chief cornerstone; the IMMOVABLE ROCK. Because you reject Biblical inerrancy, it is acceptable (in your mind) to assume a contradiction in the text. For myself, it is not. Therefore I accept Matthew 16:18 in context with other parts of scripture.

2. Why does the Greek NT, as sent out to the churches, establish a clear distinction between petros and petra? Christ cannot be referring to Peter. In fact, a switch in gender and person occurs, indicating that Christ is in fact switching the subject.

If Peter were the Pope, then surely such a distinction would not exist even in the Greek text. But ultimately this comes down to faith. I believe the Greek NT is inspired; you do not. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for you to assume the Greek NT is corrupt, whereas I embrace it as the inspired Word of God.

Lastly, can you demonstrate that Peter was in Rome, ever?

On a closing note, I encourage you to read this:

http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html



The claims of the Roman Church are based on a mistranslation of Greek text to Aramaic, or a poorly written Aramaic replication. Isn't it easier to accept that the NT sent out to the churches is the true, inspired Word of God, containing no contradictions?

If Peter was the Pope, he didn't do a very good job of stopping those corrupted manuscripts from spreading to every last one of the Gentile churches. So much for the gates of Hell not overcoming it.

1. I don't say it is a contradiction. In one case they are on Earth and have promised to mirror what happened there in heaven.

In the other, when they return they will retain the position of supremacy.

2. It is a translation thing. When speaking of Peter they use the male term for "rock" while speaking of the church they use the female term, there is no such distinction in Aramaic. By making it grammatically correct they change the meaning of the phrase. When Christ spoke of him being the "rock" he was speaking of the foundation, clearly in context. Not of a little rock that can be thrown as suggested by making it grammatically correct using the male terminology. In other words, the difference in language grammar can change the meaning. Using that translation rather than the original Aramaic so that you can find such a favorable terminology is really disingenuous.

BTW - It is not a mistranslation to make it grammatically correct using male terminology... It is, however, possible to change the meaning with that. If you notice, when translated into English no such distinction is made. It too is grammatically correct. Choosing that translation which best represents a preconceived notion is definitely an act of desperation.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes it is in the bible that Peter was in Rome. Can't quote chapter and verse, but it is in there.

 

[Litmus]

1. I don't say it is a contradiction. In one case they are on Earth and have promised to mirror what happened there in heaven.

In the other, when they return they will retain the position of supremacy.

2. It is a translation thing. When speaking of Peter they use the male term for "rock" while speaking of the church they use the female term, there is no such distinction in Aramaic. By making it grammatically correct they change the meaning of the phrase. When Christ spoke of him being the "rock" he was speaking of the foundation, clearly in context. Not of a little rock that can be thrown as suggested by making it grammatically correct using the male terminology. In other words, the difference in language grammar can change the meaning. Using that translation rather than the original Aramaic so that you can find such a favorable terminology is really disingenuous.

BTW - It is not a mistranslation to make it grammatically correct using male terminology... It is, however, possible to change the meaning with that. If you notice, when translated into English no such distinction is made. It too is grammatically correct. Choosing that translation which best represents a preconceived notion is definitely an act of desperation.

The meaning COULD have been altered through that translation thingy, or maybe the original meaning was preserved IN SPITE OF a translation error. There are many interpretations of many things, we will never know the truth unless we get a time machine and go interview the writer as he's writing it. As with all symbologies, the meaning is that which you choose to ascribe to it.

 

[Damocles]

The meaning COULD have been altered through that translation thingy, or maybe the original meaning was preserved IN SPITE OF a translation error. There are many interpretations of many things, we will never know the truth unless we get a time machine and go interview the writer as he's writing it. As with all symbologies, the meaning is that which you choose to ascribe to it.

It wasn't symbolism, it was Christ speaking to another. But that was exactly of which I was speaking the whole "How can you know" thing...

Thanks for your imput but it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Litmus]

It wasn't symbolism, it was Christ speaking to another. But that was exactly of which I was speaking the whole "How can you know" thing...

Thanks for your imput but it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The specific dramatic events of any work of literature become a part of it's symbology. Yes, it's jesus talking to another, but as we have seen, the meaning of that is debated. It becomes an expression of the meaning and is in essence a symbol. It's how the human narrative artform works.

 

[Damocles]

The specific dramatic events of any work of literature become a part of it's symbology. Yes, it's jesus talking to another, but as we have seen, the meaning of that is debated. It becomes an expression of the meaning and is in essence a symbol. It's how the human narrative artform works.

Irrespective, I specifically asked him a question about interpretation, then why he would use only that translation. Therefore your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is clear he uses that translation because it best fits what he wants it to say. Rather than the actual original language of the text he uses a translation that "says" what he wants it to. So, I am asking why he would use such a text, and I think it is clear. He had a prejudged position, he therefore sought the translation that would best fit that position.

 

[Litmus]

Irrespective, I specifically asked him a question about interpretation, then why he would use only that translation. Therefore your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is clear he uses that translation because it best fits what he wants it to say. Rather than the actual original language of the text he uses a translation that "says" what he wants it to. So, I am asking why he would use such a text, and I think it is clear. He had a prejudged position, he therefore sought the translation that would best fit that position.

And the catholics want it their way. That bible has been processed and reprocessed a thousand different ways. There's a good chance parts of it are totally made up.

 

[Damocles]

And the catholics want it their way. That bible has been processed and reprocessed a thousand different ways. There's a good chance parts of it are totally made up.

I would agree. Brent would not. He believes in the infallibility of the Bible.

I'd question why Protestants removed books that are in, and were in, at the time they decided to leave... But that isn't the topic at hand. We can start another thread on that topic, I don't want my question lost in the shuffle.

 

[uscitizen]

Irrespective, I specifically asked him a question about interpretation, then why he would use only that translation. Therefore your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is clear he uses that translation because it best fits what he wants it to say. Rather than the actual original language of the text he uses a translation that "says" what he wants it to. So, I am asking why he would use such a text, and I think it is clear. He had a prejudged position, he therefore sought the translation that would best fit that position.

Damo, I feel that prejudice is a major required part of pretty much any religion.
One might even conclude that religion is just a selected collection of prejudices.

 

[Augustine]

1. I don't say it is a contradiction. In one case they are on Earth and have promised to mirror what happened there in heaven.

It says no such thing.

2. It is a translation thing. When speaking of Peter they use the male term for "rock" while speaking of the church they use the female term, there is no such distinction in Aramaic. By making it grammatically correct they change the meaning of the phrase. When Christ spoke of him being the "rock" he was speaking of the foundation, clearly in context. Not of a little rock that can be thrown as suggested by making it grammatically correct using the male terminology. In other words, the difference in language grammar can change the meaning. Using that translation rather than the original Aramaic so that you can find such a favorable terminology is really disingenuous.

Incorrect. From English to Aramaic, Peter is translated 'Kepha', whereas a (large, immovable) rock is properly translated Shua. Shua is an immovable rock in Aramaic. The Greek translation, as sent to the Churches, makes a proper distinction between Peter (petros) and Christ (Petra).

This is setting aside the fact that Matthew wrote his account of the Gospel originally in Greek, not in Aramaic. Thus, it does not matter what you think Christ said. Matthew was there, and recorded it by the inspiration of God!

Choosing that translation which best represents a preconceived notion is definitely an act of desperation.

I choose the common text, verified by fragments as well as trustworthy copies of the original Greek NT (as found in the Italic Church, for instance). You choose a text which cannot be verified, for it is no longer extant but in perverted form. Which requires greater mental gymnastics?

That being said, it does not surprise me that a Mason would defend the whore of babylon.

 

[Damocles]

In Aramaic, it is Kepha in the text. Large Immovable, the foundation. You keep attempting to trap me, but you don't.

The distinction was between Peter and the Church as church is a female noun. You haven't caught me, you just presented incorrect information.

Kepha is used in both context as it is the word for rock in Aramaic. While in Greek they used petros to grammatically refer to the male noun of Peter, and petras to refer to the female noun of church. Petras was in reference to the church, not to Christ.

Now you are really getting desperate. As I said, in Aramaic they used the word Kepha in both cases, just as you would use rock in both cases in English.

 

[Damocles]

This is setting aside the fact that Matthew wrote his account of the Gospel originally in Greek, not in Aramaic. Thus, it does not matter what you think Christ said. Matthew was there, and recorded it by the inspiration of God!

First it is believed that the text was originally written in Aramaic. This is a translation of that original text.

And the translator wrote it grammatically correct. However the words are spoken in Aramaic, not "the original Greek" Christ did not speak in Greek.

 

[Damocles]

Anyway...

On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some antipapal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immoveable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church."

Notice as I stated, it is what is being modified that makes it grammatically correct to use the masculine form of the word with Peter, and the feminine with Church. And also notice what the original language of Matthew's Gospel is thought to have been. The Greek text is a translation of that text.

In other words, you could still believe in the infallibility of that book AND misinterpret what you read at the same time.

While the whole Pope question just seems funny to me, to you it is serious as a heart attack and I should stop teasing you like this.

You still haven't explained the removal of many books from the Catholic Bible to make the Protestant Bible.

 

[Augustine]

In Aramaic, it is Kepha in the text. Large Immovable, the foundation.

Yet I have demonstrated that Shua is the proper Aramaic term for a large, immovable rock, thereby proving a mistranslation (from Greek to Aramaic, that is). Remain ignorant if you wish.

You keep attempting to trap me, but you don't.

Um, I already have:

First it is believed that the text was originally written in Aramaic.

Believed by whom?

Few scholars of any repute hold to that view. The majority of Christian theologians naturally believe that it was authored in Greek. I am in agreement with them. Many secular scholars believe it was authored in Hebrew. There is essentially no evidence that it was originally penned in Aramaic, which is why it is the minority view (as held by many Roman Catholics). Care to explain why you are in disagreement with the majority of scholars?

Oddly, you seem to take the Catholic approach regardless of the mental gymnastics required to support it. Are you considering converting to Roman Catholicism?

As I said, in Aramaic they used the word Kepha in both cases, just as you would use rock in both cases in English.

And as I stated, it is a replication. The majority of scholars, both religious and secular, are in agreement with me. You lose.

So, perhaps this time you can address my question: why does the Greek NT sent out to the churches make a clear distinction between Petros and Petra? If Peter were the Pope, surely he would not have stood for this.

And despite what USCitizen thinks, there is nothing in the Bible to even HINT that Peter was in Rome. Peter's ministry was unto the Jews; Paul was to the Gentiles, i.e. Rome.

 

[Augustine]

You still haven't explained the removal of many books from the Catholic Bible to make the Protestant Bible.

For a thousand years, the Apocryphal books were not considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, either. 'Removal' is not the issue. I own an edition of the KJV (printed in 1769) with the Apocrypha located between the OT and NT. When Luther translated the Bible into German, he included the Apocryphal books (separate from the OT and NT). Clearly you have little understanding of the history behind Biblical canon.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle1.htm

Protestants accept that the Apocrypha is historical, even true. The question is whether these books are authoritative or not. As a Protestant who believes in the principles of the Reformation, and the inerrancy of scripture, I do not think I need to justify this. You know why I believe as I do.

 

[Damocles]

For a thousand years, the Apocryphal books were not considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church, either. 'Removal' is not the issue. I own an edition of the KJV (printed in 1769) with the Apocrypha located between the OT and NT. When Luther translated the Bible into German, he included the Apocryphal books (separate from the OT and NT). Clearly you have little understanding of the history behind Biblical canon.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle1.htm

Protestants accept that the Apocrypha is historical, even true. The question is whether these books are authoritative or not. As a Protestant who believes in the principles of the Reformation, and the inerrancy of scripture, I do not think I need to justify this. You know why I believe as I do.

Few scholars of any repute hold to that view. The majority of Christian theologians naturally believe that it was authored in Greek. I am in agreement with them. Many secular scholars believe it was authored in Hebrew. There is essentially no evidence that it was originally penned in Aramaic, which is why it is the minority view (as held by many Roman Catholics). Care to explain why you are in disagreement with the majority of scholars?

LOL. I notice that you are "at odds" with the "majority of scholars" as well who believe that the book was written after Christ and by an anonymous non-witness to the actual life of Chirst as you previously ascribed the authorship to Matthew himself, in fact it is those same scholars that believe that the text was originally in Greek.

Specifically, only believers seem desperate enough to deny evidence and place the authorship into Matthews hands.

Also, when did I say I agreed with it? I am simply asking questions. I don't believe in your religion at all.

So therefore for me it isn't some personal insistence that "God wouldn't allow man to corrupt that book" when it was clearly written by men. I find interest in the topic because of the whole "Catholics are Evil" theme presented in church when I was a child. Often I would ask the pastor if he really thought that Mother Theresa wasn't a Christian. He would call them "idolators" and many other things. I never understood why a group of people who hold the same core belief that Christ died for their sins must be at constant odds. Or why such a division must be perpetuated by the leadership of the two.

I can see maybe the leadership because of the loss of influence and the jealousy of men, but not the actual believers except that they take the word of those leaders as gospel themselves and seek to find a reason why they are "better" than the other group.

 

[Damocles]

Yet I have demonstrated that Shua is the proper Aramaic term for a large, immovable rock, thereby proving a mistranslation (from Greek to Aramaic, that is). Remain ignorant if you wish.



Um, I already have:



Believed by whom?

Few scholars of any repute hold to that view. The majority of Christian theologians naturally believe that it was authored in Greek. I am in agreement with them. Many secular scholars believe it was authored in Hebrew. There is essentially no evidence that it was originally penned in Aramaic, which is why it is the minority view (as held by many Roman Catholics). Care to explain why you are in disagreement with the majority of scholars?

Oddly, you seem to take the Catholic approach regardless of the mental gymnastics required to support it. Are you considering converting to Roman Catholicism?



And as I stated, it is a replication. The majority of scholars, both religious and secular, are in agreement with me. You lose.

So, perhaps this time you can address my question: why does the Greek NT sent out to the churches make a clear distinction between Petros and Petra? If Peter were the Pope, surely he would not have stood for this.

And despite what USCitizen thinks, there is nothing in the Bible to even HINT that Peter was in Rome. Peter's ministry was unto the Jews; Paul was to the Gentiles, i.e. Rome.

I already explained the modifier of a male as opposed to a female noun. You just don't read it because you don't want to understand.

Any language translator that understands a language with male/female nouns such as Russian, can tell you the modifiers change to the noun. Since the word was being used as a modifier to the noun "Peter" as a male, in order to be grammatically correct they would modify it with the male version of the word. As Church was being modified in the second instance and Church is a feminine noun in Greek, the modifier becomes feminine.

It is inane to say "You haven't answered why" when I have in many posts above explained this phenomena.

 

[uscitizen]

Emperor constantines hand was guided by God in his selection of the texts to be included into the current bible ?

 

[Damocles]

Emperor constantines hand was guided by God in his selection of the texts to be included into the current bible ?

Clearly not. Augusting (BDW) has made it clear that the apocrypha originally chosen to be there can be removed at will because there is a question as to its viablity as blessed books.

What I found interesting was that scholars believe that Matthew didn't write the book attributed to him, except the same Catholic scholars that he mocked that believe it was originally written in Aramaic. The Aramaic Primacy is primarily defended by the scholars that believe that the book was written in 40 to 45 by St. Matthew himself. The vast majority of scholars believe the book was written early in the 100s and clearly not by Matthew.