"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?

[John Human]

Once again, I will be replying to others' posts in due course. Right now I will address postroad's question, "What does sexual pleasure have to do with original sin?"

I think that the doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of Mary makes clear the general connection between sexual intercourse and original sin, and of course sex is generally accompanied by pleasure and usually motivated at least in part by physical desire, which has to be the correlation with original sin.

Beyond that, what parts of their bodies did Adam and Eve cover with fig leaves after they "did it"? And furthermore, Eve's punishment, pain during childbirth, is also associated (as a consequence) with sex.

Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

To use a comparable example of a euphemism from ancient Greek culture: Eris, the Goddess of Discord, gave the girl Pandora a box (vagina) and told her not to open it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Beyond that, what parts of their bodies did Adam and Eve cover with fig leaves after they "did it"?

• The text is clear that the "it" Adam and Eve did, was not sexual intercourse but to disobey God by eating from a tree that was forbidden to them. "It" certainly couldn't have been sex since God have previously commanded them to reproduce and fill the earth with their offspring. Implicit in the command was that God wanted them to have sex to achieve this aim.
  

  Since Adam and Eve were commanded to reproduce, we can reasonably assume God had designed them with the reproductive organs to make this possible. If God himself designed human genitals and mechanisms such as the capacity to achieve orgasm, that render sex a pleasurable experience, it seems logical he wasn't discouraging Adam and Eve from engaging in it.

  At no point was sex presented in the text as a reprehensible or punishable offense.

That said Adam and Eve did subsequent to their act of disobedience, cover their genitals which seems to indicate their disobedience resulted in a changed perception of how they viewed their bodies in particular their reproductive organs.





RELATED POSTS


Why did Eves punishment involve increased birth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 703#801703

PERSONAL BLOG PAGE fig leaves
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.fr/2011/09 ... ve-to.html

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX , NUDITY and ... THE ORIGINAL SIN

[RightReason]

[Replying to John Human]

Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

That doesn’t quite add up now does it? Why did God create them male and female and design our bodies the way He did? Read Song of Solomon. Sex, designed by God, is a gift and intended to be beautiful and pleasurable. The union between a man and a woman is celebrated throughout Scripture. I am afraid your theological views hold an erroneous and distorted view of sex that you believe is supported via mere speculation.

[John Human]

Replying to JehovahsWitness, I'd like to remind people that, if I correctly understand the guidelines for this "Christianity and Apologetics" subforum, the Bible alone is not considered an authoritative source. People might be aware of scholarly discussion of conflation of two separate Creation stories in Genesis.

As I understand, in this particular sub-forum, in order to make discussion accessible to non-Biblical-literalist Christians, a literal reading of the Garden of Eden story can be argued but not assumed as the foundation of a further point. (Otherwise, participation by non-literalist Christians will simply be a waste of time.)

With that said, for those who presume that the Garden of Eden story literally happened, it seems that consideration of euphemism as an interpretive technique might not be out of the question. So... "Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit" equals "Eve masturbated."

[JehovahsWitness]

Replying to JehovahsWitness, I'd like to remind people that, if I correctly understand the guidelines for this "Christianity and Apologetics" subforum, the Bible alone is not considered an authoritative source.

I am not suggesting otherwise.

However I am not aware of any rule that stipulate all posts must include at least one non-biblical reference (although my response does call on the present day reality of human biological make up). I am challenging the validity of the biblical support you are presenting by pointing out the contextual inconsistencies of your argumentation.

Beyond that, what parts of their bodies did Adam and Eve cover with fig leaves after they "did it"? ... Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

As I understand, in this particular sub-forum, in order to make discussion accessible to non-Biblical-literalist Christians, a literal reading of the Garden of Eden story can be argued but not assumed as the foundation of a further point.

Any reading can be assumed as the foundation for any a further point one wishes to make. While it seems to me your reading lacks substance, logic and credibility, I know of no rule that prohibits presenting a reading that skilfully manages to incorporate all three shortcomings.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Eve's punishment, pain during childbirth, is also associated (as a consequence) with sex.

GENESIS 3:16

To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, and your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.� - NWT

QUESTION Was Eves punishment indicative that the "original sin" was indeed sexual intercourse?

♦ANSWER No, the text gives no indication God prohibited sexual intercourse for Adam and Eve. Indeed there are a number of contextual difficulties which are thrown up if one concludes that the "original sin" was sex:

• - the text has God explicitly commanding the couple to reproduce and fill the earth, presumably by having sexual intercourse. If the original prohibition was sex, we are left with the anomaly of two contradictory commands .
  
  - The judgement pronounced on Adam (who would have also had sex) included farming difficulties. If the "punishment " was directly and literally are reflection of the offending act, then we are left with the difficulty of explaining what agriculture has to do with sexual intercourse. (While some punishments are indeed somewhat reflective of the crime committed (such as cutting off the hand of a thief) it is a unwise to make this a universal presumption).
  
  - God told Eve that he would (as a result of her sin) greatly increase her birth pains. Logically then if she did NOT sin, she would still have some pain giving birth. If the sin was sex, and she had not had sex, how would she have had the "milder" pain originally fordained?

A more rational reading would be that their sin was exactly as the text indicates it was, namely the eating of a fruit from a (literal) tree after being prohibted by their maker from doing so, and that the birth pains were simply a feature of the punisment. Since death is clearly the ultimate breakdown of the functions of a physical organism, then it is reasonable to conclude the shift from existing in a physical balanced state (that could in theory continue indefinitely) , to one that would lead to death, would have a profoundly negative physical effect. If this were indeed the case, increased birth pains would be indicative not of the nature of the crime but of the nature of the punishment.

When Eve sinned she lost her physical and emotional perfection, like crashing a car, there would be inevitable consequences and God simply informed Eve of what those were. One consequence would be a physical malfunction which would ultimately lead to death. For the female this "malfunction"" it seemed was to result in greatly increased birth pains.

JW

[Tcg]

Conclusion: "Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for fornication.

According to the story, God told Adam and Eve to, "Be fruitful and multiply."


Are you suggesting they were to accomplish this without having sexual intercourse?




Tcg

[John Human]

@JehovasWitness and Tcg, surely you don't mean that God's initial command to be fruitful and multiply implies condoning masturbation and fornication.

RightReason points out passages where the Bible promotes the joy of sex. This fits in nicely with the "euphemism" interpretation of the Genesis account of the Fall: sex must be approached correctly to be good. Otherwise, it's a source of evil. Hence the tree of "knowledge of good and evil."

[Tcg]

Tcg, surely you don't mean that God's initial command to be fruitful and multiply implies condoning masturbation and fornication.

I mentioned neither masturbation nor fornication.

I specifically asked about sexual intercourse.

Will you address the question I asked?

[tam]

Peace to you,


In addition to what JW, RR, and TCG (and anyone else I missed) have said about why sexual intercourse cannot have been the original sin, Adam and Eve were also one flesh (husband and wife). Sexual intercourse between them could not have been fornication.


And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.� For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.