tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3212747024604809827.post7245353749172930414..comments2017-12-09T22:35:52.555+08:00Comments on Fiat Volvntas Tua: Discussion with LottaLou on the interpretation of Matthew 16:18Fr. Josephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01591981421166316816noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3212747024604809827.post-56103522983930683442010-09-27T10:19:08.541+08:002010-09-27T10:19:08.541+08:00Hello Ted,
Here is your problem. You framed your ...Hello Ted,<br /><br />Here is your problem. You framed your argument on a false premise. The inspired written Word of God is that in the original language and not a translation as you have presumed. The fact that the translator preserved the pun from the Aramaic does not give evidence that St. Peter was anything other than the the "rock" that the Church is built upon. In the<br />original inspired writing St. Peter and the "rock" are one in the same. <br /><br />As far as St. Peter not being worthy of being the rock the Church is built upon, this is a argument you can present to Jesus at judgment when you confess that you were not obedient to his Church. I pray He will have mercy on you.<br /><br />The foundation of the Church is clearly explained in Scriptures saying the following.<br /><br />Jesus is the high priest and cornerstone<br /><br />The disciples are the 12 foundation stones<br /><br />St. Peter is the prime minister as Prophesied in Isa 22:15.<br /><br />God bless!<br /><br />Fr. JosephFr. Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01591981421166316816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3212747024604809827.post-29147550480404002422010-05-30T10:43:17.519+08:002010-05-30T10:43:17.519+08:00If I'm not mistaken the Koine Greek in which t...If I'm not mistaken the Koine Greek in which the gospel writer is writing is considered scripture and therefore inspired by God. Setting aside these diversions of the differences between Attic and Aramaic, I'd like to look at what is actually written. Crisoiglesia has already admitted that petra is feminine and petros is masculine. "You are Peter (Petros, which is masculine), and on this rock (taute te petra, which is feminine and can in no way be referring to petros which is the opposite gender) I will build my church." This is elementary Greek grammar. Where in Greek grammar does it say that a feminine word/noun could ever refer to a masculine word/noun/name? If the gospel writer meant to refer to Peter he could have written petros, but he didn't and I know of no one in the early church who ever suggested that he may have mistakenly transcribed petra instead of petros. I know of no controversy over this word 'te petra'. <br /><br />Jesus probably spoke formal Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The fact that He was quoting scripture from the cross and didn't bother to translate it into Greek or Latin doesn't support the idea that the gospel was originally written in Aramaic. The Koine Greek is a more precise language and erases all doubt as to what Jesus is referring to. I think that it's also important to look at what the subject of this conversation is about in the first place. Who is Jesus? ANS. The messiah, the son of the living God. Good job kepha, you're name will be rock (petros), and on this rock (taute te petra) I will build my church. Jesus even points out to Peter and everyon who will ever read this passage that Peter didn't just figure this out on his own, but that it was the Father who pointed it out to him. Peter is hardly the kind of person to build a church upon. He sank beneath the waves in a storm, he denied Jesus three times, and Jesus has to ask him three times to feed His sheep. Feed them what? How about starting with the truth. There is no more sure foundation than the rock which is Christ Jesus, the cornerstone which the builders rejected.tednoreply@blogger.com