"Upon this rock" (Matt.16:18) a mis-translation?

John Human · Post by **John Human** » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:39 pm

My very Catholic father (may God rest his recently-departed soul) liked to quote Matthew 16:18, where Jesus gave Peter his nickname, and "upon this Rock [Petros/Cephas] I will build my church."

The text of this verse makes it clear that Jesus spoke in Aramaic [not in the "original" Greek of Matthew (the earlier Hebrew version of Matthew having been lost)].

So... I'm sure that Aramaic had a word for "build," but what about "church"? It occurs to me that some words don't exist without culturally relevant meanings. Can you imagine an illiterate Galilean fisherman trying to decide whether to pray in the local Romanglican synagogue, or perhaps he would prefer the doctrinal purity of the preacher at the "Pillars of Samson" synagogue down the road?

My point here is that "churches" didn't exist for Galilean Hebrews at the time of Christ, so I doubt that a word for "church" exists in Aramaic. If that is indeed the case, then, well, what (if anything) DID Jesus say to Peter when nick-naming him Rock? And, um, if this verse was mistranslated (or worse, if it was a precursor to the deplorable Donation of Constantine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine), then what does that do to arguments for the infallibility of the Bible?

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:11 pm

[Replying to post 21 by John Human]

The command to go forth and multiply preceded any other. It certainly could not be kept if they stayed in the Garden.

Sexuality is the essential motivation and without it we would have been extinct.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:40 pm

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 21 by John Human]

The command to go forth and multiply preceded any other. It certainly could not be kept if they stayed in the Garden.

Could you please explain why you conclude they could not multiply (have children) in the garden?

JW

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:00 pm

[Replying to post 32 by JehovahsWitness]

Because they had to go forth in order to fulfill the command.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.

John Human · Post by **John Human** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:48 pm

My own view is not based on the pre-assumption that everything in the Bible is literally true. So far nobody has addressed the implications (for the meaning of "original sin") of the "immaculate conception" of Mary meaning that she was free of original sin.

I don't think that sexual intercourse is necessarily sinful. But I do think that lust is necessarily sinful. Sin separates us from God. Lust involves the desire for selfish pleasure. This is necessarily opposed to setting aside our individual wills so as to let the love of God shine through us and into the community around us.

(Cicero wrote, in his "Tusculan Disputations," of lust being one of the "four disorders of the soul," the other disorders being distress, fear and ecstasy.)

The way I see things, if the immaculate conception of Mary is not just a bunch of gibberish, it points toward an understanding of whatever is meant by "original sin" that the rest of us partake in. It seems that lust qualifies, especially as lust is typically involved in human behavior that leads to conception.

Here is my attempt to make sense of the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve:

1. God created Adam and Eve, intending that they have the opportunity to form a proper marriage with sex in its proper place, subordinate to their acceptance of the requirements of a healthy relationship, with commitment and mutual respect instead of indulging first in carnal pleasure and then trying to figure out how a relationship works.

2. In doing so, God forbade young Adam and Eve to partake in sexual activity (eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), just as most societies throughout history have attempted to keep teenagers away from sexual experimentation.

3. Satan tempted Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Eve succumbed to the temptation to masturbate.) ("It's only natural.")

4. Eve went to Adam and one thing led to another and they fornicated. ("It's only natural.")

Once again, sexual self-mastery is essential for us to have a chance to fulfill the two commandments of Jesus Christ, and this self-mastery includes self-discipline in intimate relationships. This is part of why people shouldn't have sex after dating for a week or a month. Shared lust is a very bad foundation for a committed relationship.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:56 pm

[Replying to post 34 by John Human]

Now Mary also wasn't conceived in the normal manner?

John Human · Post by **John Human** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:53 pm

postroad, you seem unaware that, in Roman Catholic doctrine, the "immaculate conception" of Mary happened in a way that was free from original sin, which meant that later on, the adult Mary was a fitting vessel to receive the Holy Spirit and become impregnated with baby Jesus.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:27 pm

[Replying to post 36 by John Human]

Seems Jesus isn't even human anymore.

John Human · Post by **John Human** » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:22 pm

There are a couple of older posts that I still intend to respond to, but I want to finish sharing my thoughts on the topic at hand.

1. Humans were created to develop a latent capacity for habitual benevolence, which was the fundamental component of "perfection" or habitual virtue in the western natural law tradition that informed the Declaration of Independence (see this topic: viewtopic.php?t=35191&sid=59aacc77696e4 ... 10ac1b4981).

2. Another way to state "habitual benevolence" is the love of God shining through us and out into the surrounding community.

3. Communities are made of families.

4. The obvious starting point for a family is a husband and wife. If both husband and wife have become "perfect" (to use the old natural law term), then their concern for the well-being of their children naturally extends to concern for the well-being of those who interact with their children.

5. In the case of parents who have not become "perfect," the potential for their children to achieve "perfection" is at risk. [This is especially true in a community that does not promote the moral maturation process in children, especially adolescents. Imagine (for example) a community where people are considered to be "naturally" self-centered, where hedonism and materialism are cultivated by endemic commercial advertising, where pornography is readily accessible to poorly-supervised teenagers who routinely listen to or at least hear (on the radio) sexually-themed music, as well as constantly imbibing TV and movie portrayals of fornication and the pursuit of sex as part of socially acceptable behavior.]

6. Now let's step back to the story of Adam and Eve. The way I see it (in light of the above), God intended for Adam and Eve to have a "perfect" marriage (in line with maturely-developed human nature), and prohibited sexual experimentation (eating from the tree of (carnal) knowledge of good and evil) until the proper time.

7. Our so-called participation in original sin can be thought of as our being conceived in a way that is immersed in parental lust. This thought presupposes the idea that the feelings and attitudes of the parents as sperm meets egg at the moment of conception are relevant to the general inclinations of the resulting human -- inclinations that can/should be either nurtured or restrained. It's not "all good."

8. The doctrine of the immaculate conception nods at the natural possibility of children being conceived without experiencing parental lust, but rather a joyous moment of loving togetherness.

"The idea of a marriage as a holy union was central to the family that descended from David. The marriage was strictly controlled. Men understood: There must be no sex except at ritually-prescribed times. Women understood: There must be no interest in arousing the husband. This was forbidden."

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:37 pm

[Replying to post 38 by John Human]

I suppose that's the reason for a man having multiple wives and concubines?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:09 am

postroad wrote: [Replying to post 32 by JehovahsWitness]

Because they had to go forth in order to fulfill the command.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.

The expression "go forth" isnt part of the command and even if it were (which it is not) it can simply mean get started, with nothing implicit that one cannot get started from the present location? Obviously the garden would have to be extended as the family grew but my question remains ...

What in Genesis 1:28 implies a prohibition of having sex and making babies in the garden?