"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?

[ttruscott]

A straw man argument. He said "FORNICATION". Eve didn't have sex with Adam, she had sex with SATAN. Where else is SATAN going to plant his seed? Why else would God even refer to the seed of the serpent?

Satan's seed was with him in Sheol (where they all RETURN to upon their death, Ps 9:17 The wicked will RETURN to Sheol, even all the nations who forget God.) and he sows (not creates) them into the world of human families as per Matt 13:36-39. To speculate he had to impregnate Eve is bogus as unnecessary, that is, Cain, the son of Adam and Eve's cohabitation was obviously one of Satan's seed he was allowed to sow into their family for GOD's purpose. The body was their ordinary biological son; the person who animated that body was Satan's seed.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

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 .

He explicitly used the word "FORNICATION". Do you understand the difference between God granted and condoned sexual congress, and fornication???

Where did God use the word fornication? In Genesis chapters 1 through 3? Please provide a reference.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

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 .

He explicitly used the word "FORNICATION". Do you understand the difference between God granted and condoned sexual congress, and fornication???

Where did God use the word fornication? In Genesis chapters 1 through 3? Please provide a reference.

Now you're taking what I posted out of context as well. This seems to be a habit for you. When someone posts that fornication may be what is prohibited, the best retort is to go on a straw man argument pointing out that God nowhere prohibits sexual activity. This in and of itself is ridiculous as we have all sorts of sexual prohibitions mentioned in scripture. More to the point, by definition, fornication is NOT commanded or condoned by God. To then equate it with what is commanded is to redefine the meaning of the word.

The other person posting pointed out that there may be a euphemism being employed by the author. Here it is:

The word "touch".

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Genesis 3:3

- nga, naw-gah'; a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman);

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 73 by shnarkle]

So you were refering to God using the word fornication in Genesis? I thought you were because I was specifically referring to sexual relations between Adam and Eve in Genesis and you replied to my points that God used the word fornication. If you were refering to another part of the bible that has nothing to do with the point I was making, fair enough.

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

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 .

He explicitly used the word "FORNICATION". Do you understand the difference between God granted and condoned sexual congress, and fornication???

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 73 by shnarkle]

So you were refering to God using the word fornication in Genesis? I thought you were because I was specifically referring to sexual relations between Adam and Eve in Genesis and you replied to my points that God used the word fornication. If you were refering to another part of the bible that has nothing to do with the point I was making, fair enough.

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

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 .

He explicitly used the word "FORNICATION". Do you understand the difference between God granted and condoned sexual congress, and fornication???

Here's the post I was referring to:

Post 60: Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:50 am Re: "Upon this rock" (Matt.16:18) a mis-translatio


[Replying to post 20 by RightReason]

[Replying to postroad]
Quote:
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.


The euphemism is to be found in the word "touch" which Eve adds to God's sole commandment. This is euphemistically used to refer to sexual contact or touching.

which is in reference to this post:

Post 21: Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:28 am


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.

Eve is told not to eat from the tree, and she adds that she shouldn't "touch" it as well, and this word can be used euphemistically to refer to 'lying with a woman". There is no need to come up with all sorts of theories as to why they stitched fig leaves to cover their crotches, or why her pregnancy would be in pain when the text is providing this much evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 75 by shnarkle]

Okay well it's usually good to click on the post written by the person that made the points you want to reply to, in this case

• > [Replying to post 20 by RightReason]
  
  > [Replying to postroad]

This will avoid confusion. Since I saw ...

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

I naturally thought you were addressing a point *I* had made in post #26 rather than replying to RightReason (post 20) and postroad.


My bad,


JW


Ps if you do want to reply to the specifice points I made in my post feel free, here is the link
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 196#954196

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 76 by JehovahsWitness]

I did respond to your question. If you have no response to the subject, that's fine too.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 1 by John Human]

"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)].

What aspect of the text indicates that Jesus spoke in Aramaic?

The word "cephas." This word ("cephas") is included in the text as a deliberate reference to a word in the original language (Aramaic) of the quotation from Jesus.

No doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic, but he undoubtedly also spoke formal Hebrew, Greek as well as Latin.l

It's not unlikely that Jesus knew some Greek, but it seems far-fetched to speculate that he also spoke Latin.

Perhaps it isn't such a well known fact that conquering empires will require thier subjects to speak their language rather than those conquered requiring the same of their conquerors.

Here you're on paper-thin ice, and perhaps you're dead wrong. As a general rule, conquering empires require proficiency in their language for local functionaries who have to answer to the overlords. As time goes by, the upper class of the conquered people becomes proficient in the language of the conqueror. A counter-example is the case of Rome and Greece, where the intelligentsia among the conquerors became proficient in the language of the conquered. But as a general rule, through the course of history, the norm was polyglot empires where the common people among the conquered retained their own language and learned nothing more than a smattering of the conquerors' language.

Greek was also the language of commerce, and if there's one thing Jews are good at, it's making money. So they would have learned Greek.

This is an astounding argument. If I understand your logic you are saying:
(1) Jews are good at making money.
(2) The language of inter-regional trade in the ancient (eastern) Mediterranean world was Greek.
(3) Therefore, illiterate fishermen in isolated, zenophobic Galilee knew Greek.

I don't buy it. There is a good description of the situation in Galilee, during the time of Jesus's ministry, in Chapter 7 ("Messiahs") of Marvin Harris's Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture.

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.
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?

Ekklesia (-)simply means "called out ones", but one need look no further than one's own Hebrew scriptures to see that this is the same meaning for those who were called out of the bondage of Egypt. Jesus is a type for Moses so he does the same thing in Matthew's gospel. Those who were called out congregated at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and were referred to as "a congregation". That is what was built.

That's a neat argument, and I'd like to follow up on it. What was the word in Hebrew from the Book of Exodus that you identify with "a congregation"? Secondly, what is your source for associating the Greek word ekklesia (-) with "called out ones"? I am inclined to suspect that you are reading too much into the meaning of the word here. If that is the case, then your association of ekklesia (-) with Moses calling the Hebrews out of Egypt (if that is the right way to put it) falls flat.

Beyond that, I can see a potential difficulty in your comparison of Jesus to Moses, because Moses led his people out of bondage (and this is presented in Exodus as the entire Hebrew nation), but Jesus's followers were a distinct sub-group of the Hebrew nation, separating to some extent from their brethren.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 76 by JehovahsWitness]

I did respond to your question.

I cannot see where. You have already explained that post #64 by shnarkle actually addressing points made by RightReason and postroad when you said...

Here's the post I was referring to:

Post 60: Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:50 am Re: "Upon this rock" (Matt.16:18) a mis-translatio


[Replying to post 20 by RightReason]

[Replying to postroad]
Quote:
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.


The euphemism is to be found in the word "touch" which Eve adds to God's sole commandment. This is euphemistically used to refer to sexual contact or touching.

So where is the post addressing points I made? Obviously not post #64

[shnarkle]

Crafty or cunning is the same word as naked. Period. Especially in light of the fact that there is a perfectly good word for being unclothed as used in: Gen 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father NAKED and told his two brothers outside. Strong's H6172 - ervah

The "naked father" or "the nakedness of the father" is a figure of speech which refers to Noah's wife Leviticus 18:7 "The nakedness of your father, she is your mother" etc. Here again, "to see" necessitates uncovering the nakedness, just as "to eat" necessitates consummation. The word play even works in English.

Crafty and cunningly made don't necessarily have negative connotations either. Jesus says to be " be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves.".