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

[John Human]

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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

The expression "immaculate conception" is not found in scripture and the idea that Mary was conceived without sin is unsupported in the bible. From what I know this is a Catholic dogma. Why should a non-catholic allow this dogma to have any bearing on biblical interpretation?


JW

[postroad]

[Replying to post 41 by JehovahsWitness]

For the same reason a Jehovah's Witness accepts the contemporary generations concept.

That being that there isn't any good reason to believe either concept.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 34 by John Human]

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.

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.

Because of the Fall, the human race is punished with Original Sin. This does not mean Original Sin was about lust and your example of the Immaculate Conception does not demonstrate such. Scripture says nothing about your speculation about the serpent pleasuring Eve <sigh>

If you were God and you got to choose your mother, why wouldnt you choose someone pure, Holy, and free from sin if you could? That is exactly what He did. He saved her from sin. This does not mean she was conceived a part from her parents having sexual intercourse. Where does it say that? Do you even understand what the Immaculate Conception means? Marys conception was not void of sexual intercourse " Jesus conception was void of sexual intercourse. This is a common mistake made by people regarding the Immaculate Conception.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 41 by JehovahsWitness]

The expression "immaculate conception" is not found in scripture

Nor need it be"as the Church came prior to the Bible and the Bible itself describes the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. We were commanded to listen to the Church. It is called Sacred Tradition and it is authoritative " and THAT is very Scriptural!

and the idea that Mary was conceived without sin is unsupported in the bible.

Wrong. There is a great deal of evidence from Scripture. The angel addressed Mary full of grace

From what I know this is a Catholic dogma.

Yes, it is doctrine of the Catholic Church (Christs Church) and is something the first Christians taught and believed and evidenced in the writings of the first Christians and early Church fathers.

But you are right, John Human does is wrong in his conclusion, as I am not sure he understands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 38 by John Human]

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

Ancient Demon was able to be the companion for many generations of the House of David. Ancient Demon knew the prescribed ritual. This ritual was not always followed. This ritual was followed in the generation before the birth of Jesus. Ancient Demon understands that, because this ritual was finally followed, Jesus was able to be born as he was.

Ancient Demon's story: http://earthwarning.org/index.php/here-be-demons/

[John Human]

[Replying to post 8 by John Human]

John Human wrote:

bjs, most languages exist within cultures with doctrinal and religious heterogeneity " people can choose between distinctly different groups. However, in the time of Jesus Christ, the culture was remarkably homogeneous. There weren't different sects within Judaism, and doctrinal differences among Jews were minimal. Therefore, there was no need for the word church. Can a congregation exist without a church?

Up until 135 A.D. Christians were considered to be one of the sects of Judaism and attended synagogues.

"In addition to the main sects which existed during the period of the Second Temple and after, such as the Pharisees , the Sadducees , the Essenes , the Therapeutae and the Dead Sea sects , the sources mention a number of others. As will be noted, some scholars identify some of these sects with those belonging to the above-mentioned categories." - Jewish Virtual Library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/minor-sects

We also should know that the first Christians were considered a Jewish sect which attended synagogues until ca. 135 A.D.

Replying (at last) to tigger2, please note that I referred, in the statement that you quoted, to Judaism in the time of Jesus Christ, by which I mean up to his crucifixion and not afterward. Whether Christianity can be considered a Jewish sect into the early decades of the second century is a different question, very interesting in itself. I'll digress for a moment with a couple thoughts: First of all, were those Christians who prayed in synagogues the same Christians that followed Paul, or were they the "Judaizing" Christians that Paul condemned? (This is especially important if Paul was indeed the "splutterer of lies" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Jewish Christians, as argued by Robert Eisenman -- see below). Secondly, I remember reading that Christians were banned from praying in synagogues in A.D. 85, but didn't see a source. I'd like to check up on that, because this would be around the time that the early Christians gave up on their belief that Jesus the Messiah would return within the lifetimes of his disciples.

But onto the question of "sects" within Judaism at the time of Jesus Christ: First of all, just because an online source uses the word "sect," doesn't mean that the use of the word is correct or appropriate. At the very least, use of the word should be clarified so others understand what is at issue.

"Sect" comes from a word meaning "to separate," so one expects to find doctrinal differences separating various sects. The Saducees and Pharisees weren't "sects," any more than the Knights of Columbus or Opus Dei are sects within the Catholic Church. Saducees and Pharisees (and Essenes) all prayed in synagogues, made an effort to keep the commandments, and sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem. There simply weren't doctrinal differences separating these various groups.

Perhaps the Essenes can be compared to the Puritans within the 16th-century Church of England. There were indeed separating tendencies, but does either group qualify as a "sect"?

You mention the "Dead Sea" group, evidently referring to the group that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. Do they qualify as a sect? Were they in fact the original Christians? Here is what Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise wrote in 1992, in their introduction to translations of long-suppressed scrolls that were finally made available to scholars outside the controlling clique (the so-called "Scandal of the Scrolls"):

"So what in effect do we have in these manuscripts? Probably nothing less than a picture of the movement from which Christianity sprang in Palestine. But there is more: If we take into consideration the Messianic nature of the texts as delineated in this book, and allied concepts such as 'Righteousness,' 'Piety,' 'justification,' 'the Poor,' 'mysteries,' what we have is a picture of what Christianity actually was in Palestine."

[postroad]

[Replying to post 46 by John Human]


Their were deep divisions within early believers. The Sadducees and Pharisees could worship together yet these new covenant believers couldn't summon much singleness of thought and action.

3 John 9-11 New International Version (NIV)

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. 10 So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

1 John 2:18-19 New International Version (NIV)

Warnings Against Denying the Son
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 46 by John Human]


There were deep divisions within early believers. The Sadducees and Pharisees could worship together yet these new covenant believers couldn't summon much singleness of thought and action.

Your post brings up the famous split between Pauline Christianity and the "Jewish Christian" congregation that followed James the Just, brother of Jesus Christ, sometimes called the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

This split is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, of course, and the other side of the story (per Robert Eisenman's extensive writings) is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, if Eisenman is correct, are documents stemming directly from the so-called "Jesus movement" as it survived under the leadership of James. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Habbakuk Pesher, writes of a Teacher of Righteousness (James "the Righteous") being plagued by a "splutterer of lies" (Paul). It also refers to foreign enemies ("kittim") invading simultaneously from the north and the south, as the Romans did in A.D. 68.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 36 by John Human]

Seems Jesus isn't even human anymore.

Perhaps it is better to say that the fabricated deification of Jesus Christ is now coming into view.

Things that Jesus (as recorded in the Bible) never said:

1. Jesus never said that we were all condemned to eternal damnation because of our participation in original sin.

2. Jesus never said that he was God, born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

3. Jesus never said that his divine (see #2 above) sacrifice on the cross served as atonement for the sins of those who believed in him, offering escape from eternal damnation (see #1 above).

These three interlocking and mutually supporting doctrines were added by Paul and others after Jesus Christ came and went, creating a new religion that was well-fitted to the larger Greco-Roman world, but sacrilege within Jewish religious thought. (Hence the Dead Sea Scrolls' condemnation of Paul as the "Splutterer of Lies.")

[JehovahsWitness]

Replying (at last) to tigger2, please note that I referred, in the statement that you quoted, to Judaism in the time of Jesus Christ, by which I mean up to his crucifixion and not afterward.

Up to the death of Jesus the Christian congregation had not been established. There were only individuals (for the most part Jewish, although from the gospel accounts not exclusively) who professed faith in Jeus and his messiahship.

I'll digress for a moment with a couple thoughts: First of all, were those Christians who prayed in synagogues the same Christians that followed Paul, or were they the "Judaizing" Christians that Paul condemned?

Okay so here, since you mention PAUL (who didnt even become a christian until after Jesus death, I take it you want to discuss what happened after Jesus death.

There was nothing imposed by any church leader in the first century that prohibited attending synagoue although for the most part, Jews that openly professed faith in Jesus were expelled from the synagogue. Believers were viewed as a Jewish sect and the Christian acceptance of full fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles would have been most shocking to the Jewsish community and probably gotten them ostracized even in the absence of a formal decree. Jewush Zealots viewed Christians and as apostates worthy of death. Indeed the persecution of the first Christians came not from the Roman authorities but from the Jews.

There was evidently much discussion within the newly formed Christian community how much of the Jewish law needed to be respected a point that was partially regulated in 49 CE by the Jerusalem counsel and later clarified by the letters of Paul.

JW