0bcf43 No.836444
I've encountered this argument before. Let's set the record straight.
A Roman Catholic might argue that the church was founded on Peter, not Christ or the confession of Christ, because Jesus says "upon this rock I will build my church". If we speculate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, it would have been akin to "You are rock. Upon this rock I will build my church", because the words would have been identical. The argument says that this is tantamount to, "upon you I will build my church".
This is a bad argument because the holy scriptures are what were inspired, written in Greek. Speculation about what Jesus might have said in Aramaic is conjecture.
The person making this argument has to:
>establish with certainty that Jesus's conversational language with Peter was Aramaic
>account for the differences in terms when written in Greek
>Prove the doctrine from the Greek anyway, independent of the Aramaic argument.
If the doctrine of Jesus building His church upon Peter is Biblical, it would be present in the koine greek. That is a matter of reasoned debate, but this talk about aramaic is not.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0bcf43 No.836447
Here's an example of such an argument being employed by a catholic
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/did-Jesus-really-make-peter-pope-1110
>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."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0bcf43 No.836448
And here's a protestant case contesting the catholic aramaic argument
https://carm.org/catholic/is-peter-the-rock
>We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the Aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c71223 No.836449
>>836444
I would like to ask a question.
If Peter (in Greek Petros which means 'rock') was not the rock that Jesus would found His church on, then what WAS the rock that Jesus founded His church on?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0bcf43 No.836450
>>836449
Christ.
>1 Cor 10:4: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.
Augustine agrees
https://archive.org/details/retractationesof00elle/page/n393/mode/2up
>The rock was Christ
More specifically, the rock is the confession that Peter just delivered that Christ is Lord.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c71223 No.836453
>>836450
Thank you very much
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
35783e No.836459
>>836444
the greek contemporaneous with the written gospel has no distinction of meaning between petra and petros, it uses masculine to refer to peter because he was male and would be weird otherwise, that Jesus spoke Aramaic only strengthen this fact. Wether the rock is peter, the apostles or the confession of faith doesn't matter as they do not exclude each other that is why you have church fathers saying different things.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ef98e9 No.836460
>>836459
>the greek contemporaneous with the written gospel has no distinction of meaning between petra and petros,
What do you mean? Are you saying there's another form of Greek that would have been used by the apostles other than koine Greek? Or that koine didn't make the distinction?
Every concordance tells you the difference
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
35783e No.836461
>>836460
Here is one source (THE IVP NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY SERIES)
>But by Jesus' day the Greek terms petros (Peter) and petra (rock) were interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (k h phas) means simply "rock" (Cullmann 1953:18-19; Ladd 1974b:110; Carson 1984:368; France 1985:254; Blomberg 1992:252).
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Foundational-Revelation
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1bf835 No.836462
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a51022 No.836472
It's a fact that Aramaic was common dialogue in 1st century Palestine. You don't have to shoot this foot off in order to dispute papists. You can simply say that the "rock" of Peter's confession is the main foundation of the Church.
The main Greek speaking areas in the North would have been places like Caesarea Maratima, which wasn't even mentioned in the New Testament. It's not even mentioned as an afterthought. It's just as worthless as the other Goy port cities that Jesus condemned (symbolized by Tyre and Sidon). It's very possible that Jesus would have found much work there as a carpenter and had to speak Greek with these people, but it's not like he was some wannabe who larped as a Hellene elsewhere.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d05528 No.836476
Protestants live these silly trivia arguments for justifying new churches that allow sodomy, adultery and other abominations against God.
It's tiresome. We get it. You hate confession and you love sin more than God. Why even pretend? You're not fooling Almighty God with this silly prattle.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
033bf1 No.836479
>>836450
Just to add on agreement to this, it makes sense only this way, because if you read the whole conversation in context, you have Peter who answers the question posed to him, Whom say ye that I am, by asserting that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. So this Christ whom Peter confessed, is also the same rock upon which He then stated He would build his church. He points out the fact that Peter, called Cephas (meaning a stone) since John 1:41, had just confessed the rock upon which the church would be built.
The phrasing makes sense when taken as a response to the confession of Peter, which it was. It makes no sense to think that "this rock" is the same thing as Peter for the simple reason why would one talk about the same person twice using two different third person words in the same sentence? It would be like saying "I'm telling you your name is John, and Johnny needs to follow me" as a command to the same one person. The obvious difficulty with this is, why didn't he say "and you need to follow me" in that case, using the second person pronoun. It's clear by the structure of it that he is making a distinction between the person being spoken to, "Thou art Peter", and the subject of the sentence-clause, "this rock." Which is referring to the Christ, as the rock whom Peter had just brought up in his confession.
Furthermore, as OP pointed out: the fact that many have often tried to refer to an Aramaic version of Matthew as a central argument for the rock (petra) being Peter (see here: >>836461), only proves that they realize the infirmity of the case for it in the Greek originals. Regardless, it is already shown it would be the most oddly phrased and grammatically incorrect statement if that is the case– as, both before and after the statement, Jesus does refer to Peter in the second person pronoun. Fortunately, the statement of Peter immediately before Matthew 16:18 provides the exact antecedent which "this rock" can refer to. This is further supported internally by statements to this effect in 1 Cor 10:4 (pointed out), Ephesians 2:20, and 1 Corinthians 3:11 ("For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."). And a multitude of others, such as Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11-12, 1 Peter 2:7.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ef98e9 No.836486
>>836461
I don't really see an explanation, can you clarify?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
002382 No.836489
>>836472
I'm not shooting off a foot, and that's what the position I hold
The point is that the aramaic argument doesn't prove the foundation of the church upon Peter.
>If the doctrine of Jesus building His church upon Peter is Biblical, it would be present in the koine greek
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ef98e9 No.836501
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d05528 No.836517
>>836501
>muh en-tell-agent diss kussion.
Seriously?
You think that the Lord Came to Earth, suffered and died to give you a King James Bible and tell you sin is okay?
I mean, you're fooling yourself. Why even bother fooling yourself?! You just end up in hell and you make everyone else miserable with your sin
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
85da62 No.836568
>1 Peter 2:3-5
Peter and Paul also founded Antioch, why don't they have precedence? Because this rock meme is cope to justify base will to power. It is done in retrospect.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b32bb7 No.836853
>>836449
>then what WAS the rock that Jesus founded His church on?
faith
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b32bb7 No.836855
>>836476
>Protestants live these silly trivia arguments for justifying new churches that allow sodomy, adultery and other abominations against God.
Don't you think that's a little ironic given that it's the catholic church that has a global pedophile ring deeply embedded in it? You have homosexual priests having gay, coke fueled orgies in the vatican with the consent of the pope.
Not that the protestants are superior to catholics, but you clearly have your own issues that you should focus on. The sins of others shouldn't bother you nearly as much as the sins of your own.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f8fe4a No.837049
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
80c6a2 No.837085
>>836517
But what Protestant believes that sin is OK?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.