was Mary also the Spouse of God?

shnarkle said:
Cephas is the Aramaic name. Petros is the Greek translation. The oldest manuscripts we have of the gospel narratives are all written in Koine Greek, hence the writers used Greek names, and they all clearly understood that "this rock" couldn't have referred to Peter, but necessarily must have referred to Peter's confession that Jesus was the messiah.

Moreover, the gospel writer could just as easily written "tautw tw petrw" which would have been in the masculine form and would necessarily have referred to no one other than Peter. He didn't do that though, did he? Nope.

No wonder the early church didn't want people reading the bible. smh.
Click to expand...
That isn't what I asked.
What was the original language of the Book of Matthew?
 
pilgrim said:
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that




Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).


Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).


Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]). https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew


Click to expand...
So is it originally in hebrew or aramaic? Youre citing different sources saying different things? I asked you in the same post to link us to a hebrew manuscript of Matthew that predates the greek texts we have. Wheres that? And you know Irenaeus also said Jesus was pushing 50 when He went to the cross right? Peter and Paul never preached in rome laying the foundation of the church. Paul even says in Romans 3 that he had never been there. How did he lay the foundation of the church which already existed if he had never been there?

Origen is a heretic as catholics love to point out whenever we cite him. So you have dueling ecf's saying two different things, both with major flaws in their theology. Yet you can't post a link to a manuscript in hebrew or aramaic that predates the greek. What we have of Matthew, the earliest remnants of that gospel is in greek. The onus is on you to show something other than the greek was used. Again, my statement stands.

This is also from your article;

"After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek"
 
Nondenom40 said:
So is it originally in hebrew or aramaic? Youre citing different sources saying different things? I asked you in the same post to link us to a hebrew manuscript of Matthew that predates the greek texts we have. Wheres that? And you know Irenaeus also said Jesus was pushing 50 when He went to the cross right? Peter and Paul never preached in rome laying the foundation of the church. Paul even says in Romans 3 that he had never been there. How did he lay the foundation of the church which already existed if he had never been there?

Origen is a heretic as catholics love to point out whenever we cite him. So you have dueling ecf's saying two different things, both with major flaws in their theology. Yet you can't post a link to a manuscript in hebrew or aramaic that predates the greek. What we have of Matthew, the earliest remnants of that gospel is in greek. The onus is on you to show something other than the greek was used. Again, my statement stands.

This is also from your article;

"After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek"
Click to expand...
I asked what was the original language of the book of Matthew. That is not the same as "the earliest manuscripts we have." Quote others from the first two centuries then if they say something else.
 
pilgrim said:
I asked what was the original language of the book of Matthew. That is not the same as "the earliest manuscripts we have." Quote others from the first two centuries then if they say something else.
Click to expand...
So your article is meaningless then. Why did you even post it?
Here is another quote from the article;

"Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39])."

Great! So if the original was written in aramaic and 'everyone translated them as well as he could' why isn't there anything in antiquity in aramaic? Why are the earliest copies in greek and not aramaic or hebrew? You people are always grasping at straws instead of reaching for whats right in front of your face. With you people its always 'why wouldn't God do this' or something. Always choosing the the most irrelevant, vague option because its simply what agrees with your church not because its right.
 
pilgrim said:
That isn't what I asked.
What was the original language of the Book of Matthew?
Click to expand...
All evidence points to Koine Greek. The reason being that they weren't written down until long after the church was becoming a Greek speaking Gentile church. Remember that the gospel narratives were written after Paul's, Peter's, James, and John's letters which were all written in Greek as well.

The fact that the narratives themselves refer to Aramaic names, words, etc. and then proceed to translate them indicates that they were never written in Aramaic to begin with.
 
shnarkle said:
All evidence points to Koine Greek. The reason being that they weren't written down until long after the church was becoming a Greek speaking Gentile church. Remember that the gospel narratives were written after Paul's, Peter's, James, and John's letters which were all written in Greek as well.

The fact that the narratives themselves refer to Aramaic names, words, etc. and then proceed to translate them indicates that they were never written in Aramaic to begin with.
Click to expand...
This is true. I once wrote to a cyber scholar friend of mine, who teaches Classical literature at a college, which includes the Bible, plus, he teaches Koine Greek as well as Latin. He used to teach Hebrew, but not enough students signed up at his university to take Hebrew, so that study was dropped from the curriculum. But he also told me much the same thing about Matthew, when I asked about this. Matthew may have written a separate gospel written in Hebrew for the Jews, but the only surviving manuscripts/copies of Matthew we have are all in Greek--and in Greek, there most definitely is a distinction between the two "rocks" in the Matthew verse. And as has been pointed out, had Peter really been what Jesus meant to build His church upon, then Matthew would have written "Upon you, petros, I will build my church..." But He didn't. He said "Upon this Petra I will build My church..."
 
Nondenom40 said:
So is it originally in hebrew or aramaic? Youre citing different sources saying different things? I asked you in the same post to link us to a hebrew manuscript of Matthew that predates the greek texts we have. Wheres that? And you know Irenaeus also said Jesus was pushing 50 when He went to the cross right? Peter and Paul never preached in rome laying the foundation of the church. Paul even says in Romans 3 that he had never been there. How did he lay the foundation of the church which already existed if he had never been there?

Origen is a heretic as catholics love to point out whenever we cite him. So you have dueling ecf's saying two different things, both with major flaws in their theology. Yet you can't post a link to a manuscript in hebrew or aramaic that predates the greek. What we have of Matthew, the earliest remnants of that gospel is in greek. The onus is on you to show something other than the greek was used. Again, my statement stands.

This is also from your article;

"After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek"
Click to expand...
Seems to me that Augustine wrote something to the effect that when Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my church" He meant Himself, not Peter. And this was what....late 4th, early 5th century? I will see if I can find it.
 
Bonnie said:
This is true. I once wrote to a cyber scholar friend of mine, who teaches Classical literature at a college, which includes the Bible, plus, he teaches Koine Greek as well as Latin. He used to teach Hebrew, but not enough students signed up at his university to take Hebrew, so that study was dropped from the curriculum. But he also told me much the same thing about Matthew, when I asked about this. Matthew may have written a separate gospel written in Hebrew for the Jews, but the only surviving manuscripts/copies of Matthew we have are all in Greek--and in Greek, there most definitely is a distinction between the two "rocks" in the Matthew verse. And as has been pointed out, had Peter really been what Jesus meant to build His church upon, then Matthew would have written "Upon you, petros, I will build my church..." But He didn't. He said "Upon this Petra I will build My church..."
Click to expand...
Thank you.
And it would have said "Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha, and upon this stone (kaypha) I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”
 
pilgrim said:
Thank you.
And it would have said "Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha, and upon this stone (kaypha) I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”
Click to expand...
Well then He was not talking about your institution, it opened its doors to the gates of hell and that is why there has been the latest scandals and this will not be the last. There have been centuries of scandals that show it is not His church.
 
pilgrim said:
Thank you.
And it would have said "Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha, and upon this stone (kaypha) I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”
Click to expand...
Don't thank me yet. But that is because there isn't a distinction between the two in Hebrew, as far as I know--but there is in Greek. Since all the ancient copies of Matthew, whole or in part, that exist, are written in Koine Greek, where there IS a distinction as in "You are Petros, and upon this Petra, I will build My church" after Petros said "you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", then it behooves us to go by what the Greek says.

Catholics are desperate to twist the Bible into making Peter the foundation of the church, instead of ALL the prophets and apostles, with Jesus as the Cornerstone, which is what the Bible actually says. Why don't Catholics go by what ALL of the Bible says? Why do they isolate verses, and put spins on them that are NOT there?
 
Bonnie said:
Seems to me that Augustine wrote something to the effect that when Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my church" He meant Himself, not Peter. And this was what....late 4th, early 5th century? I will see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
Yes, here it is, from a Catholic website, no less, which I cannot link to, "Catholics Striving for Holiness", which is just the first place that I found it:

In himself he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace an apostle and the chief of the apostles. But Christ said to him: To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you will bind upon the earth will be bound also in heaven and whatever you will forgive upon the earth will be forgiven also in heaven. Now these words applied to the entire Church. In this life it is shaken by various trials, as if by rains, floods and tempests, but it does not fall because it is founded upon the rock from which Peter received his name.

The Lord said: Upon this rock I shall build my Church because Peter has first said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God. The Lord was really saying: I shall build my Church upon the rock which you have acknowledged. For the rock was Christ, and upon this foundation even Peter himself was raised up. Another foundation indeed no one can lay except that which was laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

DO note the first bolded part....here Augustine sees the keys as being applied to the entire church, not just Peter. And in the second bolded part, he clearly believes that the Rock Jesus would build His church upon was Himself, the Foundation no one can lay, except Jesus Himself. And it is Peter who was "raised up" upon this foundation.

So, don't Catholics consider Augustine a "Catholic"--big "C"? One of themselves?

So, it seems to me, it was by no means universal with the ECFs that they saw Peter as the sole leader of the early church, and a Pope-like figure, or that Jesus meant He would build His church upon Peter, when Scripture clearly says otherwise.
 
Bonnie said:
So, don't Catholics consider Augustine a "Catholic"--big "C"? One of themselves?

So, it seems to me, it was by no means universal with the ECFs that they saw Peter as the sole leader of the early church, and a Pope-like figure, or that Jesus meant He would build His church upon Peter, when Scripture clearly says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes , he is a doctor of the Church.


5. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
 
Bonnie said:
Seems to me that Augustine wrote something to the effect that when Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my church" He meant Himself, not Peter. And this was what....late 4th, early 5th century? I will see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
Augustine also retracted a number of his earlier beliefs. This was one of them. He may have believed it was Peter at one point but later changed his mind.
 
pilgrim said:
Yes , he is a doctor of the Church.


5. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
Click to expand...
I didn't see anything here about Augustine believing Jesus built His church on Peter.

New Advent is a Catholic website, so it prejudicially capitalizes "catholic" and "church" to make it appear it is the Roman Catholic Church Augustine meant, when instead, in actually, it is "catholic church". Simply, the universal church.
 
Bonnie said:
I didn't see anything here about Augustine believing Jesus built His church on Peter.

New Advent is a Catholic website, so it prejudicially capitalizes "catholic" and "church" to make it appear it is the Roman Catholic Church Augustine meant, when instead, in actually, it is "catholic church". Simply, the universal church.
Click to expand...
"The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. "
 
pilgrim said:
"The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. "
Click to expand...
So you have a succession of evil leaders, and that keeps you going. More than that you think that Peter would have anything to do with those that teach false doctrines and condone sin instead of exposing it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top